Liberal vs. Conservative

[DutchTexan]

@Quinnbeast @Noire @Speedyv @othertomperson @Aspiring Techie @CantThinkOfAUserName @stconquest @Misanthrope @Ithanul

 

Sorry, work is busy today. I will get back to everything in detail tonight. In the mean time, watch this and tell me what you think, if you want.

 

 

[stconquest]

*yawn

 

That is what I think.

 

Evidence of Saudi ties of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. was also presented to the 9/11 commission and conveniently left out of the final report.  Those papers are now released, you can search for them.

 

Here:  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/15/911-report-saudi-arabia-28-pages-released

 

Look at you fuckers getting the world to chase a man in a cave...   #dumbAF

[Pomfinator]

I see Sather Gate, and Fox News...I already know that they're going to cherry pick terrible responses from my stupid school mates.

[Okjoek]

The video is completely stupid and cherry picked. As one person earlier said it's currently pay-to-win with Hillary being more of the same and Donald being more of the similar as he's a beneficiary to her policies. If there was any real change in this election it left months ago IMO.

[DutchTexan]

@stconquest @Pomfinator @Okjoek

 

Lol yeah, no big deal! Just write it off! It's practically irrelevant... It's a section of interview, becasue I know you wouldn't have the time or attention to watch a full interview anyway, SO then it has to mean nothing... becasue it's 'cherry picked'. Just like those videos of people who want to repeal the bill of rights, totally didn't happen. Both of those videos are all false...

 

Do you even know who Julian Assange is? Shows how much you know about truth.

[DutchTexan]

9 hours ago, Quinnbeast said:

Fascinating to see how easily you write things off as merely the flaw of society while discussing an issue of democracy and governance. What is the point of voting if there is no mechanism by which a vote will collectively improve the country you live in? A government can and should be judged on how it deals with the poor, the homeless, the minorities and the powerless. Freedom that does not apply equally to every member of society, is a form of oppression - but since you're not on receiving end of it personally, I guess you're okay with that. This is the age-old problem of voting intentions; if you only ever vote for your self-interest, it's no wonder that these ills of society still persist, if not worsen. Freedom is worthless if it is unilateral.

 

Donald Trump has categorically no experience in office or in politics in any meaningful way, so, how exactly do you fairly analyse his impact on democracy when he has not had any? Hillary Clinton has been involved in politics since the 1970s, so I'm intrigued to know how you can make a balanced comparison between a 40-year career, and someone who has successfully bought their way into a presidential election with an otherwise blank résumé? An assumption made on his political intentions based on nothing more than rhetoric and posturing, is far more dangerous than one based on a well-understood (if arguably flawed) career.

"Fascinating to see how easily you write things off as merely the flaw of society while discussing an issue of democracy and governance" Democracy and governance is not there to regulate peoples behavior or tax inactivity. That is essentially what I was saying. You can not force people to do things. You only punish them after they have committed things. Interpret this how you want, I really don't care. My point I am trying to stress is people can speed, but it is against the law. You cannot force people not to go over the speed limit. That is tyranny.

 

"What is the point of voting if there is no mechanism by which a vote will collectively improve the country you live in?" If that is how you feel about it, that's fine by me. I don't care if people vote or not. I think it would actually be better if we went back to the method and representation of America during the founding period, not entirely but closer to that than where we are today. Much like how it was in ancient Greece, only slightly more modern and inclusive. After all, America is not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. True democracy will destroy itself in a few years.

 

"I wanted to ask god why he would allow greed, famine and injustice into this world, but I am afraid. I am afraid he might turn around and ask me the very same thing."

 

"A government can and should be judged on how it deals with the poor, the homeless, the minorities and the powerless" I fundamentally disagree with you here, except for the powerless part. If you would have said a 'society' or 'citizen' instead of 'government' then I would agree. It is not the governments job to give people jobs. It is the governments job to provide an environment that protects and functions on behalf of the people and their natures, otherwise, why do we need governemnt? For example, a spider. No matter how bad I want to take care of a spider in the wild, ultimately the best thing for me to do is provide an environment for that spider to thrive. No matter how hard I try, I can not physically feed that spider, I cannot hunt for it, I cannot build a spiders web for that spider. Then, when the spiders web is broken, only that spider can fix it. What I am saying is, only nature thrives with 0 input. No matter what I do, the best thing I can do in many situations for that spider is to allow nature to thrive. Basically, the best thing I can do for that spider is to make sure I don't get in the way, leave it the fuck alone. 

 

Buddy, I will debate freedom with you all day. "Freedom that does not apply equally to every member of society, is a form of oppression..." So, based of Hillary's actions we are being oppressed. One example, you order to destroy evidence after a subpoena from congress orders to preserve the record. What do you have to say about that?? Anyway, what you said there is true, but the latter section of that statement that I did not quote is pure bullshit. Racism is largely over, maybe it still exists to a very small degree, but ultimately it is not significant enough to react to in the form of additional law or regulation. Did you miss the civil rights movement, or what's the deal with all that? Racism is taught, encouraged or just straight up baited. I am not talking about it anymore. I am tired of people bringing up race inappropriately over and over and over. Get over yourself and stop trying to administer victim cards. You want to argue racism? Move out of the United States. If you think you have been victimized in the United States, for whatever reason, then how will you survive anywhere else in the world. I am not talking about race anymore. 

 

Working for yourself is not selfish. Just becasue you care about yourself does not mean you are selfish. I have a high priority on the individual, becasue I believe that is how you better the world. If you cannot fix yourself, then how are you going fix the world? Otherwise you are saying you are perfect. Which is impossible. Individualism is the key to existence. Your life is individualistic. Your understanding is individualistic. Your perception is individualistic. Spirituality is individualistic. Experience is individualistic. Smelling, seeing, hearing tasting touching... REALITY is individualistic. If you were as critical of yourself as you are of others, then you just might get somewhere in life. That is all I am saying. I donate my own time and money to those who are less fortunate. Do you? Do democrats usually donate? Or is it the conservative people of America who donate the most? Do or do not 'progressives' 'liberals' or 'democrats' just expect the government to take care of the poor? "Not my problem poor guy, I pay taxes!" I spend my time learning, listening and teaching other people what I know, becasue I care about people. I want the world to be a better place, I really do. I care about my neighborhood, I care about my family, I care about my state, I care about my pets, I care about my vegetable garden, I care about my fruit trees, I care about my country and I care about those who serve my country. Fundamentally what I am saying is, if everyone focused on themselves, then the world would be remedied of its fundamental, primeval ills. So calling me selfish, is just ridiculous. Wake up and learn yourself. You can't know what you are, what you really want from this world without exploring and understanding who you actually are. 

 

Freedom is never worthless. If it was, then it wouldn't be freedom. Freedom is being responsible for your actions. That means you own your positive and negative consequences. Please understand this concept that freedom can be suffering negatives at your own fault.

 

 

 

Donald Trump has already exercised democracy by listening to his supporters. Things he has brought up this election were never mentioned by anyone else, but the American people and himself. Other politicians have blatantly failed to grasp the average American and his/her concern. He ran against 17 people and consequently received more votes than any other Republican nominee. Spin that how you want, that is significant. Hillary has experience, that's true! But her experience is shit. In the years and years of her experience, what good has she actually done? Honestly. When there is proof of her saying she has a public and a private opinion on issues, then that means she is telling people what they want to hear for votes. Straight up. With her, it is just wiped under the rug as, "That's just what politicians do and say." Those days should be over. Same thing goes with Trump. People wipe things he says under the rug as, "That's okay, he is not a politician." Those days should be over. He has been a politician for a year and a half, certainly when he is president that argument will not work. So, she has experience, but her experience is PATHETIC. So how valuable is it then, really? Name some positives. Name some negatives. Truthfully, it is not something to advertise as a strength. If her experience is all she has to campaign on, then she has very little positive to actually campaign on, truly! It is hilarious that people try to argue her 40 years of experience as a good thing, when almost nothing about it is good. She has experience, but it is bad experience and an ASTONISHING history of dishonesty. 

 

Donald has more experience and knowledge of the governemnt than most people will give him credit for. Regardless, I would rather not have a president with political experience. It is the year of an outsider. You know, through the history of our country, it was the same way. You don't need to be a politically elite individual to run the country. It is actually designed that way. You need to have the skill of surrounding yourself with the best people. An area Donald exceeds tremendously, Hillary is literally the exact opposite. 

 

Thanks for making it this far, if you did. I hope you genuinely consider everything I said. I looked deeply into what you said. I understand your intentions are just as good as mine, our opinions just do not align.

 

 

 

[DutchTexan]

Just now, DutchTexan said:

"Fascinating to see how easily you write things off as merely the flaw of society while discussing an issue of democracy and governance" Democracy and governance is not there to regulate peoples behavior or tax inactivity. That is essentially what I was saying. You can not force people to do things. You only punish them after they have committed things. Interpret this how you want, I really don't care. My point I am trying to stress is people can speed, but it is against the law. You cannot force people not to go over the speed limit. That is tyranny.

 

"What is the point of voting if there is no mechanism by which a vote will collectively improve the country you live in?" If that is how you feel about it, that's fine by me. I don't care if people vote or not. I think it would actually be better if we went back to the method and representation of America during the founding period, not entirely but closer to that than where we are today. Much like how it was in ancient Greece, only slightly more modern and inclusive. After all, America is not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. True democracy will destroy itself in a few years.

 

"I wanted to ask god why he would allow greed, famine and injustice into this world, but I am afraid. I am afraid he might turn around and ask me the very same thing."

 

"A government can and should be judged on how it deals with the poor, the homeless, the minorities and the powerless" I fundamentally disagree with you here, except for the powerless part. If you would have said a 'society' or 'citizen' instead of 'government' then I would agree. It is not the governments job to give people jobs. It is the governments job to provide an environment that protects and functions on behalf of the people and their natures, otherwise, why do we need governemnt? For example, a spider. No matter how bad I want to take care of a spider in the wild, ultimately the best thing for me to do is provide an environment for that spider to thrive. No matter how hard I try, I can not physically feed that spider, I cannot hunt for it, I cannot build a spiders web for that spider. Then, when the spiders web is broken, only that spider can fix it. What I am saying is, only nature thrives with 0 input. No matter what I do, the best thing I can do in many situations for that spider is to allow nature to thrive. Basically, the best thing I can do for that spider is to make sure I don't get in the way, leave it the fuck alone. 

 

Buddy, I will debate freedom with you all day. "Freedom that does not apply equally to every member of society, is a form of oppression..." So, based of Hillary's actions we are being oppressed. One example, you order to destroy evidence after a subpoena from congress orders to preserve the record. What do you have to say about that?? Anyway, what you said there is true, but the latter section of that statement that I did not quote is pure bullshit. Racism is largely over, maybe it still exists to a very small degree, but ultimately it is not significant enough to react to in the form of additional law or regulation. Did you miss the civil rights movement, or what's the deal with all that? Racism is taught, encouraged or just straight up baited. I am not talking about it anymore. I am tired of people bringing up race inappropriately over and over and over. Get over yourself and stop trying to administer victim cards. You want to argue racism? Move out of the United States. If you think you have been victimized in the United States, for whatever reason, then how will you survive anywhere else in the world. I am not talking about race anymore. 

 

Working for yourself is not selfish. Just becasue you care about yourself does not mean you are selfish. I have a high priority on the individual, becasue I believe that is how you better the world. If you cannot fix yourself, then how are you going fix the world? Otherwise you are saying you are perfect. Which is impossible. Individualism is the key to existence. Your life is individualistic. Your understanding is individualistic. Your perception is individualistic. Spirituality is individualistic. Experience is individualistic. Smelling, seeing, hearing tasting touching... REALITY is individualistic. If you were as critical of yourself as you are of others, then you just might get somewhere in life. That is all I am saying. I donate my own time and money to those who are less fortunate. Do you? Do democrats usually donate? Or is it the conservative people of America who donate the most? Do or do not 'progressives' 'liberals' or 'democrats' just expect the government to take care of the poor? "Not my problem poor guy, I pay taxes!" I spend my time learning, listening and teaching other people what I know, becasue I care about people. I want the world to be a better place, I really do. I care about my neighborhood, I care about my family, I care about my state, I care about my pets, I care about my vegetable garden, I care about my fruit trees, I care about my country and I care about those who serve my country. Fundamentally what I am saying is, if everyone focused on themselves, then the world would be remedied of its fundamental, primeval ills. So calling me selfish, is just ridiculous. Wake up and learn yourself. You can't know what you are, what you really want from this world without exploring and understanding who you actually are. 

 

Freedom is never worthless. If it was, then it wouldn't be freedom. Freedom is being responsible for your actions. That means you own your positive and negative consequences. Please understand this concept that freedom can be suffering negatives at your own fault.

 

 

 

Donald Trump has already exercised democracy by listening to his supporters. Things he has brought up this election were never mentioned by anyone else, but the American people and himself. Other politicians have blatantly failed to grasp the average American and his/her concern. He ran against 17 people and consequently received more votes than any other Republican nominee. Spin that how you want, that is significant. Hillary has experience, that's true! But her experience is shit. In the years and years of her experience, what good has she actually done? Honestly. When there is proof of her saying she has a public and a private opinion on issues, then that means she is telling people what they want to hear for votes. Straight up. With her, it is just wiped under the rug as, "That's just what politicians do and say." Those days should be over. Same thing goes with Trump. People wipe things he says under the rug as, "That's okay, he is not a politician." Those days should be over. He has been a politician for a year and a half, certainly when he is president that argument will not work. So, she has experience, but her experience is PATHETIC. So how valuable is it then, really? Name some positives. Name some negatives. Truthfully, it is not something to advertise as a strength. If her experience is all she has to campaign on, then she has very little positive to actually campaign on, truly! It is hilarious that people try to argue her 40 years of experience as a good thing, when almost nothing about it is good. She has experience, but it is bad experience and an ASTONISHING history of dishonesty. 

 

Donald has more experience and knowledge of the governemnt than most people will give him credit for. Regardless, I would rather not have a president with political experience. It is the year of an outsider. You know, through the history of our country, it was the same way. You don't need to be a politically elite individual to run the country. It is actually designed that way. You need to have the skill of surrounding yourself with the best people. An area Donald exceeds tremendously, Hillary is literally the exact opposite. 

 

Thanks for making it this far, if you did. I hope you genuinely consider everything I said. I looked deeply into what you said. I understand your intentions are just as good as mine, our opinions just do not align.

 

 

 

triggered  

[Quinnbeast]

13 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

"Fascinating to see how easily you write things off as merely the flaw of society while discussing an issue of democracy and governance" Democracy and governance is not there to regulate peoples behavior or tax inactivity. That is essentially what I was saying. You can not force people to do things. You only punish them after they have committed things. Interpret this how you want, I really don't care. My point I am trying to stress is people can speed, but it is against the law. You cannot force people not to go over the speed limit. That is tyranny.

Tax inactivity? I'm talking about whether a vote has the power to change something, and you're talking about tax. Oooookay.

13 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

"What is the point of voting if there is no mechanism by which a vote will collectively improve the country you live in?" If that is how you feel about it, that's fine by me. I don't care if people vote or not. I think it would actually be better if we went back to the method and representation of America during the founding period, not entirely but closer to that than where we are today. Much like how it was in ancient Greece, only slightly more modern and inclusive. After all, America is not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. True democracy will destroy itself in a few years.

I'm not interested in a semantics debate of how you classify your form of society. You claim to have considered my words careful, but seem hell-bent on misinterpreting what I've said despite a perfectly clear context. I'm talking about democracy in the modern sense; elements of legal equality, human rights, civil liberties and the right to protest or petition a grievance. And, the right to vote, of course. Although, if you want to discuss the political system as a whole, there's increasing evidence that the US system is in fact an oligarchy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

13 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

"A government can and should be judged on how it deals with the poor, the homeless, the minorities and the powerless" I fundamentally disagree with you here, except for the powerless part. If you would have said a 'society' or 'citizen' instead of 'government' then I would agree. It is not the governments job to give people jobs. It is the governments job to provide an environment that protects and functions on behalf of the people and their natures, otherwise, why do we need governemnt? For example, a spider. No matter how bad I want to take care of a spider in the wild, ultimately the best thing for me to do is provide an environment for that spider to thrive. No matter how hard I try, I can not physically feed that spider, I cannot hunt for it, I cannot build a spiders web for that spider. Then, when the spiders web is broken, only that spider can fix it. What I am saying is, only nature thrives with 0 input. No matter what I do, the best thing I can do in many situations for that spider is to allow nature to thrive. Basically, the best thing I can do for that spider is to make sure I don't get in the way, leave it the fuck alone. 

You're straw-manning this thread like a champion. I didn't say anything about giving people jobs. And metaphors about arachnids don't offer any clarity to the discussion either. You've missed the obvious link between power and personal wealth. The most powerful people in society are almost always the wealthiest - the two are essentially interchangeable. The ease with which you separate power from wealth suggests you don't actually understand my meaning in the slightest. The minorities and the working class are the ones without power or influence. A government makes a large portion of it's income from the taxes people pay, so it is always in their interest to encourage and support every single person. I didn't say they should give people jobs, but there should always be a drive towards inclusivity. As far as I'm concerned, a government serves the population. If it doesn't, it isn't fit for purpose. A society is the sum of it's parts, and what is 'a country' if not it's people (ALL of them)?

 

13 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Buddy, I will debate freedom with you all day. "Freedom that does not apply equally to every member of society, is a form of oppression..." So, based of Hillary's actions we are being oppressed. One example, you order to destroy evidence after a subpoena from congress orders to preserve the record. What do you have to say about that?? Anyway, what you said there is true, but the latter section of that statement that I did not quote is pure bullshit. Racism is largely over, maybe it still exists to a very small degree, but ultimately it is not significant enough to react to in the form of additional law or regulation. Did you miss the civil rights movement, or what's the deal with all that? Racism is taught, encouraged or just straight up baited. I am not talking about it anymore. I am tired of people bringing up race inappropriately over and over and over. Get over yourself and stop trying to administer victim cards. You want to argue racism? Move out of the United States. If you think you have been victimized in the United States, for whatever reason, then how will you survive anywhere else in the world. I am not talking about race anymore. 

I'm not familiar with specific details of US news, I have enough of a time trying to follow the shit-storm in my own country. 

 

Once again, I did not mention racism specifically, and yet you're getting bent out of shape on your own terms. However, just because there was a civil rights movements and you think that "racism is largely over", yet again belies how much you over-simply your own world view. I can't figure out if you're devoid of empathy or just a little naive. How does someone merely deal with oppression if it is institutional? It sounds like you're the one that needs to put yourself in the shoes of others, and not me. Congrats on "not talking" about it (twice) while still managing to write a whole damn paragraph.

13 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Working for yourself is not selfish. Just becasue you care about yourself does not mean you are selfish. I have a high priority on the individual, becasue I believe that is how you better the world. If you cannot fix yourself, then how are you going fix the world? Otherwise you are saying you are perfect. Which is impossible. Individualism is the key to existence. Your life is individualistic. Your understanding is individualistic. Your perception is individualistic. Spirituality is individualistic. Experience is individualistic. Smelling, seeing, hearing tasting touching... REALITY is individualistic. If you were as critical of yourself as you are of others, then you just might get somewhere in life. That is all I am saying. I donate my own time and money to those who are less fortunate. Do you? Do democrats usually donate? Or is it the conservative people of America who donate the most? Do or do not 'progressives' 'liberals' or 'democrats' just expect the government to take care of the poor? "Not my problem poor guy, I pay taxes!" I spend my time learning, listening and teaching other people what I know, becasue I care about people. I want the world to be a better place, I really do. I care about my neighborhood, I care about my family, I care about my state, I care about my pets, I care about my vegetable garden, I care about my fruit trees, I care about my country and I care about those who serve my country. Fundamentally what I am saying is, if everyone focused on themselves, then the world would be remedied of its fundamental, primeval ills. So calling me selfish, is just ridiculous. Wake up and learn yourself. You can't know what you are, what you really want from this world without exploring and understanding who you actually are. 

 

Freedom is never worthless. If it was, then it wouldn't be freedom. Freedom is being responsible for your actions. That means you own your positive and negative consequences. Please understand this concept that freedom can be suffering negatives at your own fault.

 

What? Can you please just stick to the subject without making pointless generalisations about half of the population of your country, or me as an individual? Your need to credit your own generosity is nauseating, and reads as an entirely defensive statement. "Wake up and learn yourself"??? Don't be so patronizing. Once again, you seem to miss the important bit of my point, freedom - if not applicable to everyone - is. not. freedom. You're championing something without acknowledging where it's limits and boundaries lie. I didn't say it was worthless in and of itself, just that it cannot be claimed if it only applies to some people.

13 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Donald has more experience and knowledge of the governemnt than most people will give him credit for. 

Examples please. A business is not a government. If one is run like the other, I can't see how they would be anything other than a catastrophic failure. Governance is not about balancing the books and keeping the shareholders happy (for the most part).

 

13 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Donald Trump has already exercised democracy by listening to his supporters. Things he has brought up this election were never mentioned by anyone else, but the American people and himself. Other politicians have blatantly failed to grasp the average American and his/her concern. He ran against 17 people and consequently received more votes than any other Republican nominee. Spin that how you want, that is significant. Hillary has experience, that's true! But her experience is shit. In the years and years of her experience, what good has she actually done? Honestly. When there is proof of her saying she has a public and a private opinion on issues, then that means she is telling people what they want to hear for votes. Straight up. With her, it is just wiped under the rug as, "That's just what politicians do and say." Those days should be over. Same thing goes with Trump. People wipe things he says under the rug as, "That's okay, he is not a politician." Those days should be over. He has been a politician for a year and a half, certainly when he is president that argument will not work. So, she has experience, but her experience is PATHETIC. So how valuable is it then, really? Name some positives. Name some negatives. Truthfully, it is not something to advertise as a strength. If her experience is all she has to campaign on, then she has very little positive to actually campaign on, truly! It is hilarious that people try to argue her 40 years of experience as a good thing, when almost nothing about it is good. She has experience, but it is bad experience and an ASTONISHING history of dishonesty. 

 

Donald has more experience and knowledge of the governemnt than most people will give him credit for. Regardless, I would rather not have a president with political experience. It is the year of an outsider. You know, through the history of our country, it was the same way. You don't need to be a politically elite individual to run the country. It is actually designed that way. You need to have the skill of surrounding yourself with the best people. An area Donald exceeds tremendously, Hillary is literally the exact opposite. 

 

Thanks for making it this far, if you did. I hope you genuinely consider everything I said. I looked deeply into what you said. I understand your intentions are just as good as mine, our opinions just do not align.

 

Like I said, a politician who says what he thinks people want to hear is the definition of populist rhetoric, designed only to fit the moment. If you actually believe that what he says, and you equate it to genuine long-term political intentions, then your naivety is set in stone. Since you're all about the metaphors and comparisons, the idea of a president without experience is a bit like saying "I want to hire a pilot that has worked previously as a bus driver". Donald Trump may not be a politician, but he was born into a multi-billion dollar business empire. He is no closer to Joe Ordinary than any other member of the establishment. The only difference is, people love him for being a little bit rude/sexist/prejudice because it normalized their own tendencies. It does not make him "one of the people".

 

One of the overriding themes in this election is a distrust of women. Why do I say that? Well, the fact that Bill Clinton became president in the 90s and Hillary did not, is because America wasn't ready for a female in the big seat, and perhaps still isn't. Even then, she was the one with the drive and devotion to her cause. If Clinton was male, none of this stuff would have made even half of the impact that is has done. I'm not claiming she's squeaky clean - not by a long shot; but corruption has always existed in all walks of life. Clinton would in fact need to be The Virgin Mary to be in with a fair fight. And despite a pending rape trial for DT, an accusation of rape even from his own wife, not to mention countless allegations of misconduct and various degrees of sexual assault; all of these are neatly swept aside as a smear campaign. All of it. Why? Because people don't trust HC, and they don't trust the women making accusations. Assuming even 2% of these accusations are true, what does that tell you other than DT being every bit as corrupt and power-mad as HC is claimed to be. Meanwhile, Clinton is guilty of everything the papers print about her. How. Very. Convenient.

 

If you're so narrow-minded on this issue that you literally cannot find a single positive about Hillary Clinton's political career, then why would you expect me to spend time trying to convince you otherwise? Smear campaigns are alive and well on both sides, and both sides will also be guilty of some on the things leveled at them. If you believe in something so blindly that you cannot acknowledge that there are grey areas left and right, then you've made it clear that this is likely a wasted exercise. The joke is on me perhaps.

 

Thanks for the discussion all the same.

[Sauron]

On 3/11/2016 at 7:52 PM, DutchTexan said:

Liberals have no idea how racist they are

He said right after generalizing "white liberals".

[DutchTexan]

7 hours ago, Quinnbeast said:

Tax inactivity? I'm talking about whether a vote has the power to change something, and you're talking about tax. Oooookay.

I'm not interested in a semantics debate of how you classify your form of society. You claim to have considered my words careful, but seem hell-bent on misinterpreting what I've said despite a perfectly clear context. I'm talking about democracy in the modern sense; elements of legal equality, human rights, civil liberties and the right to protest or petition a grievance. And, the right to vote, of course. Although, if you want to discuss the political system as a whole, there's increasing evidence that the US system is in fact an oligarchy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

You're straw-manning this thread like a champion. I didn't say anything about giving people jobs. And metaphors about arachnids don't offer any clarity to the discussion either. You've missed the obvious link between power and personal wealth. The most powerful people in society are almost always the wealthiest - the two are essentially interchangeable. The ease with which you separate power from wealth suggests you don't actually understand my meaning in the slightest. The minorities and the working class are the ones without power or influence. A government makes a large portion of it's income from the taxes people pay, so it is always in their interest to encourage and support every single person. I didn't say they should give people jobs, but there should always be a drive towards inclusivity. As far as I'm concerned, a government serves the population. If it doesn't, it isn't fit for purpose. A society is the sum of it's parts, and what is 'a country' if not it's people (ALL of them)?

 

I'm not familiar with specific details of US news, I have enough of a time trying to follow the shit-storm in my own country. 

 

Once again, I did not mention racism specifically, and yet you're getting bent out of shape on your own terms. However, just because there was a civil rights movements and you think that "racism is largely over", yet again belies how much you over-simply your own world view. I can't figure out if you're devoid of empathy or just a little naive. How does someone merely deal with oppression if it is institutional? It sounds like you're the one that needs to put yourself in the shoes of others, and not me. Congrats on "not talking" about it (twice) while still managing to write a whole damn paragraph.

 

What? Can you please just stick to the subject without making pointless generalisations about half of the population of your country, or me as an individual? Your need to credit your own generosity is nauseating, and reads as an entirely defensive statement. "Wake up and learn yourself"??? Don't be so patronizing. Once again, you seem to miss the important bit of my point, freedom - if not applicable to everyone - is. not. freedom. You're championing something without acknowledging where it's limits and boundaries lie. I didn't say it was worthless in and of itself, just that it cannot be claimed if it only applies to some people.

Examples please. A business is not a government. If one is run like the other, I can't see how they would be anything other than a catastrophic failure. Governance is not about balancing the books and keeping the shareholders happy (for the most part).

 

 

Like I said, a politician who says what he thinks people want to hear is the definition of populist rhetoric, designed only to fit the moment. If you actually believe that what he says, and you equate it to genuine long-term political intentions, then your naivety is set in stone. Since you're all about the metaphors and comparisons, the idea of a president without experience is a bit like saying "I want to hire a pilot that has worked previously as a bus driver". Donald Trump may not be a politician, but he was born into a multi-billion dollar business empire. He is no closer to Joe Ordinary than any other member of the establishment. The only difference is, people love him for being a little bit rude/sexist/prejudice because it normalized their own tendencies. It does not make him "one of the people".

 

One of the overriding themes in this election is a distrust of women. Why do I say that? Well, the fact that Bill Clinton became president in the 90s and Hillary did not, is because America wasn't ready for a female in the big seat, and perhaps still isn't. Even then, she was the one with the drive and devotion to her cause. If Clinton was male, none of this stuff would have made even half of the impact that is has done. I'm not claiming she's squeaky clean - not by a long shot; but corruption has always existed in all walks of life. Clinton would in fact need to be The Virgin Mary to be in with a fair fight. And despite a pending rape trial for DT, an accusation of rape even from his own wife, not to mention countless allegations of misconduct and various degrees of sexual assault; all of these are neatly swept aside as a smear campaign. All of it. Why? Because people don't trust HC, and they don't trust the women making accusations. Assuming even 2% of these accusations are true, what does that tell you other than DT being every bit as corrupt and power-mad as HC is claimed to be. Meanwhile, Clinton is guilty of everything the papers print about her. How. Very. Convenient.

 

If you're so narrow-minded on this issue that you literally cannot find a single positive about Hillary Clinton's political career, then why would you expect me to spend time trying to convince you otherwise? Smear campaigns are alive and well on both sides, and both sides will also be guilty of some on the things leveled at them. If you believe in something so blindly that you cannot acknowledge that there are grey areas left and right, then you've made it clear that this is likely a wasted exercise. The joke is on me perhaps.

 

Thanks for the discussion all the same.

Thanks for taking the time to respond the way you did. I respect you for thinking and putting in effort. 

 

"Tax inactivity? I'm talking about whether a vote has the power to change something, and you're talking about tax. Oooookay."

That is what Obamacare is. I'm talking about National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which was essentially all about Obamacare having the right to tax people for inactivity, fining them for not signing up. Which is still not really fitting to what you are talking about, but I related it terms of "if a vote should be able to change something" In the sense of forcing a tax on inactivity, a vote should never change anything, but here it did. Which probably doesn't make any sense, but that is where my mind was with that :1

 

I'm not going to argue that America is going to shit. That has been the truth, unfortunately. Just like the illness of language. That is also a factor in our discussion. I am sorry.

 

"I didn't say anything about giving people jobs."

That's how interpreted it. People who talk about governemnt in the light of taking care of the poor, at least here in the states, usually infers they are advocating for more hand outs. That is the reason why I talked about what the government should do for the poor, from my perspective. (which is nothing, but provide an environment for an ecosystem) The governemnt should not 'take care' of the poor as I said in the former. The people should take care of the poor. If people think someone else will always do something, then nothing get's done; there will be no ownership. People are starving in the world and it is my fault that they just passed away.

 

"The most powerful people in society are almost always the wealthiest - the two are essentially interchangeable"

Has it ever not been so? That is the nature of the power of the purse. I wouldn't want it any other way. If I had a hundred thousand dollars to give to the less fortunate, then I can make a larger affect than someone who donates a thousand dollars. Power is a double-edged sword. Simple. My spider analogy was to expand on my point about governemnt intervention. Whether it is useless to the argument or not, did you pick up what I was trying to put down? 

 

"As far as I'm concerned, a government serves the population. If it doesn't, it isn't fit for purpose."

I agree with this 100%. Unfortunately, that is the reality we are facing. We agree here. So, how would we come together for a virtual solution, here on this thread? I argue that society needs better representation. By that I mean less people voting and literally better representation. Also, the middle class is what is most important. There is too much legislative attention on helping the poor and restricting the rich. These laws and regulations sound like they will grow the middle class, when in realty they do the exact opposite. This is what has been happening, from my point of view, and will only progress current failures. This is where the spider analogy comes in. When my government intends to grow the middle class on the surface of their policy, bill, act or whatever, in reality, those advertised optics end up hurting the middle class, doing the exact opposite as they 'intended'.

 

"...bit of my point, freedom - if not applicable to everyone - is. not. freedom" Yes, I agree. If a black women has an easier time getting scholarships and grants for their higher education than a white male, what do you call that situation? IF you graduate HS in the top 10% it doesn't mean anything for college anymore, like it used to. Instead, it is about what color your skin is and whether you have genitals or not. Nothing to do with your performance through public school. I think the top 5% of a graduating class should have the liberty of a free college education. So, that is why I don't like talking about race. The racism and discrimination actually goes both ways. It's just very complecated, that is why I think people should just ignore race and ethnicity all together.

 

On the subject of freedom, we largely agree. Freedom is very important to me. I have been observing individual rights and a culture of valuing freedom fading more and more over the years. It is deeply concerning. 

 

On the subject of civil rights, we agree they exist, but for whatever reason you think there should be another civil rights movement? Is that what you are saying? I think the laws have been put into place already. If anything, adding more laws and regulations is what is keeping racism alive, in my view.

 

 

 

Politics

 

 

 

"Like I said, a politician who says what he thinks people want to hear is the definition of populist rhetoric, designed only to fit the moment. If you actually believe that what he says, and you equate it to genuine long-term political intentions, then your naivety is set in stone."

I guess it is all my fault then. What I was trying to say, between Donald and Hillary, Hillary says whatever everyone wants to hear and Donald says what a lot of people want to be said. Maybe it is the same thing and I am a fool, but ultimately, I trust Donald J. Trump. I really do. I believe him when he said he doesn't need to run for office, but he is doing it to give back to the country and her people. Hillary, I DO NOT trust. Although, I will actually admit, as a conservative Republican, sometimes she actually says the right thing and I actually agree with her. The problem is, she is straight up lying and everyone knows it. So, it means nothing. Hillary has a need to get the job. Whilst, Donald has a genuine want to do the job. Big difference. That is the simplest way I can break it down, from my view.

 

Guess what? Donald was not actually born into a multibillion dollar business empire. Although, his family was worth a few hundred Million dollars, but they are billionaires now, becasue of Donald. Keep in mind, you can throw anything away. Had he not raised his children right, then they could piss all that money and all those amazing assets away faster than you can get to work.

 

It's not about the distrust of women. Although, I would say there is a lot of it to go around. I am totally okay, even in favor, of a women for president. It's just that Hillary, to me and many others, genuinely see her as demonic figure with wealth and power in her heart and the American people last on her mind. She is not the women for the job. Why are you defending her so much? Why are you attacking Donald so much? I am defending him, becasue I know the only entities in favor of Donald are American patriots. The media, the establishment from both sides, rich celebrities and Hollywood in general, the largest multinational businesses, global corporations and the NYSE and everyone enmeshed with that life, even Facebook and Google are in bed with the Clinton Campaign. I am attacking Hillary to such a degree, mostly becasue of Wikileaks. Without Wikileaks I would only have the impression of my beliefs. With Wikileaks my impressions are reinforced. Now that there is evidence supporting my ideas of her evil intentions and horrible visions for my country, it is set in stone. That is why allegations are trying to be proven to set your idea that Donald is this gross, creepy asshole in stone too. What I have been observing for the last 2 years.... is just depressing. That is why no one trust the bullshit people are trying to smear him with. The most important thing to consider is time before this election. Hillary was still the exact same person. Donald has been changed to a completely different, his personality has been multiplied by a factor of 100 in the worst direction. How? Why?

 

Donald brought 4 women with him to one of the debates. These women have already been proven or admitted, through our legal system, to have been sexual victims of Bill Clinton. These were the 4 most brutal cases(there are many many more) and violations, NOT ALLEGATIONS, and guess what happened? No one talked about it. No one covered it. No one really cared about what they had to say, becasue of the nature of this campaign cycle. People cried wolf too many times.

 

**I have said this many times on this website** When the democratic national convention starts off with the highest ranking members resigning, I think 5 of them, including the chair of the democratic party, isn't that a little worrying? When e-mails surface of a rigged election in favor of Hillary, shutting Bernie out, isn't that a little worrying? Then, the Clinton campaign goes and hires that chairwomen who used to head the DNC along with the very people responsible for 'rigging' the nomination in her favor in order to help head her campaign??? Why is it that a foundation has dozens of people getting salaries from a 'charitable' foundation? Salaries that are not a reasonable 60k/year, but hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?? Isn't that a little worrying? 

 

I really could go on and on. The final nail in the coffin for her should be that video I posted of Julian Assange basically saying the same people who funded 9/11 and are funding ISIS are the largest contributors to her campaign. What are we to do if that is true? Did you watch that video of a snip of the interview? What can the world do if that is true and she become president?

 

You only understand from your level of perception. As do I. When there are at least 2 FBI investigation CURRENTLY on going for Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, then that means a lot more than someone saying Donald might have committed fraud and he might have raped a child. Conveniently, everything happens before election day. For a year and a half the media and popular figures have been performing the same type of attacks on Donald. I stopped buying it 6 months ago.

 

Now, Donald is not a saint. However, at this point he has a lot more going for him than her. Hillary's only option is demonize Donald. If her campaign was genuinely about her, she won't get anywhere. Now I am sure you can find all kinds of stories against Trump, but I don't think we need to turn this into a contest. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. This campaign has been messy, messy, messy.

 

Something to keep in mind: Bill Clinton was not impeached becasue he had sex. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Perjury and obstruction of justice has already been demonstrated, to some degree, by the current administration, Hillary herself, many people involved in her campaign AND her foundation and even the department of justice; if this is actually true, isn't it a little worrying?

 

 

 

I may have made some spelling and grammar errors that I have failed to correct. I am better at shooting a gun, than communicating on paper.  

I hope that you can understand what I am thinking or where I am coming from. Thanks for being constructive. I really do not mean anything personal, even if it may have been directed at you from time to time. Like I said, I respect you for taking this seriously and not just resorting to a brief, emotional response. Have a nice weekend!

 

[SurvivorNVL]

I agree heavily with Dutch-Texan.  Though I do have to add - nothing is as simple as Liberals vs Conservatives.  Liberals and Conservatives, the modern variants at least are almost entirely the same in essence, given they have the same financiers and donors, save for some special changes in their interests.  In the end, they still adhere to a grander corporate scheme.

Note the two to the far right, don't even exist yet.  But the Republican party, the vast majority are more center-right, traditionally.  The RINO's of the GOPe are obviously, and have always been more left-wing by nature.  Libertarians failed themselves.  Democrats used to be center-right, but this graph is looking at it from a linear perspective.



This one is a bit more accurate, but has some errors, like Trump and Hillary, given he's more his own category and the Ted Cruz side, and Ted Cruz is more mainstream Conservative, and she's entirely modern day Liberalism.  Pinochet is bae.



NazBol is lit, fam.

 

[2FA]

I'm mainly seeing people confuse plain and simple ignorance with political ideology. I enjoyed the debates that we had in my government class because even though we were required to pick a side and do some research beforehand, most everyone else didn't understand what they actually researched. I would say most people in the class leaned Left with maybe three who were Right. While personally I admit that I fall very similarly in beliefs to Progressives such as Sanders, I will gladly attack an argument that has little merit. Going off of that, I believe that we should have more thorough background checks but not an outright ban on firearms. Also, Hillary going after firearm manufactures is a joke. The two issues I have with the left is the tendency to be anti-vax and the hatred of GMOs. I will believe a well researched paper published in a reputable journal before an online blog.

 

Had I been interviewed like in the video, I wouldn't have said the ID laws are racist. I would have stated that they disproportionately affect the ability to vote of the economically disadvantaged, especially when the the voter ID requires some form of payment to obtain. Poll taxes are illegal for a reason and there is very little difference between the effects of the two.

[TheKDub]

On 11/3/2016 at 3:55 PM, othertomperson said:

There's a word for a leader who jails inconvenient political opponents. Trump has already promised to lean on the justice system if elected. You should be very worried about the implications of him getting near power.

The reason Trump wants to throw Clinton in jail isn't because she's his opponent, he wants to throw her in jail because she's a criminal, and the current justice system is too corrupted to do shit about it.

[Centurius]

Just now, TheKDub said:

The reason Trump wants to throw Clinton in jail isn't because she's his opponent, he wants to throw her in jail because she's a criminal, and the current justice system is too corrupted to do shit about it.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

[DutchTexan]

39 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

I'm mainly seeing people confuse plain and simple ignorance with political ideology. I enjoyed the debates that we had in my government class because even though we were required to pick a side and do some research beforehand, most everyone else didn't understand what they actually researched. I would say most people in the class leaned Left with maybe three who were Right. While personally I admit that I fall very similarly in beliefs to Progressives such as Sanders, I will gladly attack an argument that has little merit. Going off of that, I believe that we should have more thorough background checks but not an outright ban on firearms. Also, Hillary going after firearm manufactures is a joke. The two issues I have with the left is the tendency to be anti-vax and the hatred of GMOs. I will believe a well researched paper published in a reputable journal before an online blog.

 

Had I been interviewed like in the video, I wouldn't have said the ID laws are racist. I would have stated that they disproportionately affect the ability to vote of the economically disadvantaged, especially when the the voter ID requires some form of payment to obtain. Poll taxes are illegal for a reason and there is very little difference between the effects of the two.

So, why do poor people have iPhones? You are arguing people are so poor they can't even get an ID? Are you serious? If you don't have ID, what can you actually do? You are saying people should be able to vote without an ID. Do you understand what you are really advocating? Fraud. You are advocating for voter fraud, sunshine.

 

Gun laws already exist. Did you know that? If we followed all the guns law that already exist, there wouldn't be a third of the issues we already have. Example: Chicago (very strict gun laws, stupid high gun crime, so more gun laws are the answer....) Did you know it is a felony to lie on an application to purchase a gun? Did you know if you are addicted to a controlled substance, then you cannot purchase a firearm, legally? Did you know, in most cases, if you have a felony, the you cannot purchase a firearm, legally? Did you know if you have a mental illness, then you cannot purchase a firearm, legally? Did you background checks already exist? If I go to a Houston gun show, they run me through a background check before I buy another firearm, legally. 

 

You can't have a firearm in court, just like you can't scream whatever you want in court. The First and Second Amendments have enough limitations already.

 

[2FA]

14 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

So, why do poor people have iPhones? You are arguing people are so poor they can't even get an ID? Are you serious? If you don't have ID, what can you actually do? You are saying people should be able to vote without an ID. Do you understand what you are really advocating? Fraud. You are advocating for voter fraud, sunshine.

I didn't say not any ID at all jackass, I said no voter ID. Requiring an explicit ID just for voting is the same as having a poll tax. A birth certificate or driver's lisence should be enough.

 

15 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Chicago (very strict gun laws, stupid high gun crime, so more gun laws are the answer....) 

Chicago is an issue because you can drive 10 miles outside the city where guns laws are extremely lax.

 

17 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Did you background checks already exist? If I go to a Houston gun show, they run me through a background check before I buy another firearm, legally. 

Yes I know all of those but the issue is whether or not those conditions, especially mental illness will show up on the background check. That's the reason I said MORE THOROUGH and not saying we need background checks.

[IAEInferno]

On 11/4/2016 at 3:57 AM, DutchTexan said:

Just like how Gore took his election loss to supreme court? Just like how a special prosecutor was used to impeach Nixon? Your ignorance is what worries me, kiddo

So you assumed he was young and ignorant because you thought you were 100% correct from the information you got from "Right-wing Media" that shows Trump as a good choice while showing Hillary as the bad one?

 

People like you are what makes America look bad if I have to be completely honest with you .

 

Read up on Rankism before you decide to do a post on Liberalism vs Conservative or any other posts related to political issues and etc.

 

 

 

[IAEInferno]

On 11/4/2016 at 4:33 AM, DutchTexan said:

Now you want me to abandon religion, becasue you think that is the right thing. How open-minded of you!

because*

 

There is a fine line between being religious and being rational with a person having a religion.

 

How did you come to the conclusion that you have to abandon religion to be considered rational? 

[IAEInferno]

On 11/4/2016 at 4:47 AM, Atmos said:

 

 

-EDIT-

Surprise surprise. I know what I'm talking about, and am more than willing to call bullshit on people. I'm not an edgy highschool cuck who likes to spit raging comments online without the slightest idea of what I'm actually saying. I'm an early twenty year old, married college student working my way through a major in marine bio with a minor in computer science, and who's taken many, many classes on human history, political science, and art history.

You can learn a lot from a societies art and architecture. You can learn how the society felt as a whole by simply looking at the ideals they put into architecture, and how their art is portrayed. I actually wrote an english thesis on how architecture displays a specific culture's attitudes from its construction, and how the elements play into its design.

6

 

I think you need to calm down and read what Rankism is before anything else.

 

So you wrote an English thesis, went to classes on human history, political science and art history.

 

Will this make your argument look any better? Obviously no, it only makes you look like a condescending twat that doesn't understand what he is talking about.

 

On 11/4/2016 at 4:47 AM, Atmos said:

1. China is communist. The party controls all aspects of government within the country. The fact that the controlling party within the country is literally "The Communist Party of China" says more than enough. If you think its anything but communist, then you're the one sadly mistaken.

2. Marxism is an ecnomic theory based on the ideas of Karl Marx, and to a lesser Friedrich Engels. its core philosophy is promoting a socialist, and eventually communist state by giving control of the economy to the working class. Private companies do not exist under a marxist country. 

3. Communism is heavily based upon marxist principles, and is as many more learned that myself teach, is the natural progression of marxism once it becomes the primary driving factor of a state.

 

Communism's fundamental ideals come straight from marxism. You could argue marxism is simply a critique of capitalism, in its purest form. However, you stop being a "critique" when you implement such radical and flawed ideas into a society. 

 

Its once again no coincidence that communism has produced the worst countries on earth to date, where as modified capitalism has produced the super powers of the world, and combined with minor aspects of socialist ideals produces the best countries on earth to live in.

8

 

1. Aren't you stating the obvious here? The Communist party of China or the CPC is, officially, organized on the basis of democratic centralism, a principle conceived by Marxist theoretician Vladimir Lenin which entails democratic and open discussion on policy on the condition of unity in upholding the agreed upon policies.

 

The Ideologies of the CPC are:

 

Communism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

 

2. Anyone can google that, and no Private companies exist anywhere even in a Marxist Country, In fact, there is no such thing as purely Marxist or purely anything anymore in regards to political ideologies because today people know that anything that's purely Capitalism, Communism, Socialist and etc. has it's flaws that can be "fixed" with having a few  ideologies and concepts that synergise well.

 

3. While Communism is based upon the Marxist principles, it is however not the primary driving factor for natural progression of a state since there are a lot of factors and imperfections that Marxism has that needs other ideologies and concepts to reduce the flaws which it incorporates. While it would take veritably volumes to explain the full implications and ramifications of the Marxist social and economic ideology, Marxism is summed up in the Encarta Reference Library as “a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in society.”

 

Worse Countries up to date? Tell me exactly what are these Countries that are "worst" and tell me what Countries are the best? 

 

Because it looks to me that you are just spewing bullshit without ever tackling the subject and proceed to say "Communism has produced the worst countries on earth to live in".

 

Socialist ideals? there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. Social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms, which is present everywhere with a government.

 

 

 

Before you brag about how much you have studied, before you explain things that are vague, before you put down people to look superior(Rankism), know that with every bullshit that you speak of, someone out there knows what is right.

 

 

 

 

Make it rain

 

 

*Drops the Mic and leaves stage*

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Atmos]

8 hours ago, IAEInferno said:

So you wrote an English thesis, went to classes on human history, political science and art history.

 

Will this make your argument look any better? Obviously no, it only makes you look like a condescending twat that doesn't understand what he is talking about.

No, it merely states that I'm not an echo chamber child who's only information on the subject comes from reading blogs on tumblr or wikipedia on how socialism and marxism are the best forms of government. The last bit is just an interesting thing to take into considering, food for thought if you will, because honestly it is pretty interesting if you stop and look at it. A cultures architecture and art tell a lot about them, and stopping to examine that from time to time can be pretty damn neat.

 

8 hours ago, IAEInferno said:

2. Anyone can google that, and no Private companies exist anywhere even in a Marxist Country, In fact, there is no such thing as purely Marxist or purely anything anymore in regards to political ideologies because today people know that anything that's purely Capitalism, Communism, Socialist and etc. has it's flaws that can be "fixed" with having a few  ideologies and concepts that synergise well.

1. You appear to have agreed with my point here. If you read what I posted, you'll see " Private companies do not exist under a marxist country. "

2. I never said there were purely marxist countries. I never said there were purely communist countries. I never said there were purely capitalist countries. I think you'll notice I called china a communist country with capitalist policies. I called the best countries to live in "capitalist with socialist" policies.  I never said any one country was purely one thing. 

3. So if the main driving factor of a country is say, capitalism, but that country has policies derived from socialist ideals and that country then fails because private industries (A calling card and the largest part of capitalism, if you will) destroy natural resources, devalue national labor, and throw the national economy into death spins causing the working class to fall to poverty and crime rates to soar. Would you blame that on socialism? Or would you blame the fall of the country on the primary driving force of said country?

If the collapse of a state was almost entirely possible to be linked back to the after affects of a single ideal, would you not point the blame at that ideal?

We say china is communist, because vastly, china has adopted communist tendencies and policies. We say the US is capitalist because it has almost entirely adopted capitalist tendencies and policies. We say denmark is a socialist country because it has adopted vastly socialist tendencies and policies.

We call these countries what we call them, because to fully label and explain every single facet, of every single policy and ideal held within the state would be impossible for every day conversation, and even political discourse.

At the end of the day, China is overwhelmingly communist, and the US is overwhelmingly capitalist, and that's just that.

 

8 hours ago, IAEInferno said:

3. While Communism is based upon the Marxist principles, it is however not the primary driving factor for natural progression of a state since there are a lot of factors and imperfections that Marxism has that needs other ideologies and concepts to reduce the flaws which it incorporates. While it would take veritably volumes to explain the full implications and ramifications of the Marxist social and economic ideology, Marxism is summed up in the Encarta Reference Library as “a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in society.”

Poor choice of words on my part really, trying to explain a flow of events. Let me try to restate it so its more understandable.

Once a country adopts marxist policies, that country will (As has been shown with virtually every marxist uprise) progress into various forms of communism. This is generally accepted as being true, regardless of political theories attempting to prove otherwise.

You are right, marxism at its base cannot work alone in a state. That is why once a state attempts to become marxist, it ends up having to add onto that base doctrine; until you eventually end up with some form of communism. Now, why this is how it is, is an entirely different discussion. This is merely what has happened, and will more than likely continue to happen with human society.

 

8 hours ago, IAEInferno said:

Worse Countries up to date? Tell me exactly what are these Countries that are "worst" and tell me what Countries are the best? 

objectively looking at states where the primary focus is on capitalism and socialism merged together you have the "best" life or highest quality of life. Countries like Denmark, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Austria. States where you have high economic, social, religious, and political freedom. As well as low crime rates, and relative safety from wars and internal conflicts. These also happen to be the top 6 highest "Quality of life" rated countries in the world.

Now looking at the most successful countries where the Communism, or marxism have become, or were the primary driving factors for the countries development. Countries like China, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, and North Korea. Countries that happen to be filled with internal violence on a massive scale, imaginable poverty, oppressive regimes, and downright human rights violations conducted by the state on a massive scale.

These are some of the worst countries in the world to live in, and that's not a subjective opinion, that is an objective fact, period.

Capitalism with socialist reforms has produced the worlds best places to live, whereas the best communism has, is some of the worst places on earth.

 

8 hours ago, IAEInferno said:

Socialist ideals? there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. Social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms, which is present everywhere with a government.

There are many forms of every type of government. Yet we still call capitalism, capitalism and communism, communism. I know it may be hard to understand a broad category, but try to stay with me now. Strong socialist ideals when adopted by the state refer to exactly that. A policy or group of policies with strong derivatives from socialism, meaning a focus on societal preservation or protection. Because every person can be considered a part of the society though doesn't mean a monarchy (Which is controlled by a member of society and primarily promotes their personal agenda or preservation) is socialist. 

 

8 hours ago, IAEInferno said:

*Drops the Mic and leaves stage*

Before dropping that mic, maybe you should check the stability of the platform you're preaching from my dude.

[MaxBunny]

11 hours ago, Centurius said:

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

That doesn't work in court ya know.

[Quinnbeast]

Thanks for keeping it civil DutchTexan (DT??? Is that you Donald????) - it can become an emotive subject all too easily, which tends to distract from the meat and veg of the argument.

 

19 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

Guess what? Donald was not actually born into a multibillion dollar business empire. Although, his family was worth a few hundred Million dollars, but they are billionaires now, becasue of Donald. Keep in mind, you can throw anything away. Had he not raised his children right, then they could piss all that money and all those amazing assets away faster than you can get to work.

 

I intentionally threw that in as a lazy point of reference (i.e. I didn't check the specific figures), because I consider the exact details irrelevant. For starters, if you take inflation in to account, the family wealth at the point where DT was a child will likely equate to billions in real money today. But moreover, the fact that you corrected billions to "hundreds of millions" without the slightest hint of irony hardly diminishes my point. Making a lot of money when your starting point is hundreds of millions of dollars is not noteworthy; under no circumstances does it represent someone who has built a business from the ground up, merely a basic level of competence. In fact, for me it represents the imposition of a truly corporate mindset into a position of political power.

 

19 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

 

"I didn't say anything about giving people jobs."

That's how interpreted it. People who talk about governemnt in the light of taking care of the poor, at least here in the states, usually infers they are advocating for more hand outs. That is the reason why I talked about what the government should do for the poor, from my perspective. (which is nothing, but provide an environment for an ecosystem) The governemnt should not 'take care' of the poor as I said in the former. The people should take care of the poor. If people think someone else will always do something, then nothing get's done; there will be no ownership. People are starving in the world and it is my fault that they just passed away.

That reads like a valid argument, but it is vague enough not actually mean anything. Which people should take care of the poor. Who are they? Why should they? Because the government won't or shouldn't? What environment/ecosystem should be provided while also contributing "nothing" directly? You seem to have a disjointed understanding of what it means to be poor, and from your tone, I assume you see that being poor equates to being lazy? It's the same mindset that suggests that if you're successful, then you only have yourself the thank for that, which is almost always not the case, because it ignores every other economic and social factor. There are of course examples that back up a rags-to-riches tale, but they are the exception to the rule. If everyone has equal opportunities in life, why isn't someone who was previously homeless or destitute running for president? What happens when a single mother of four loses her husband (the primary earner) in an accident? What happens when someone who has paid taxes their whole live becomes disabled due to illness and can no longer afford their home? Why should I pay tax for twenty years only to be given categorically fuck-all support if I fall ill and am unable continue my current line of work? Perhaps there are sufficient variations in our governments that something is getting lost in the translation here... hopefully you see my point.

 

19 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

"...bit of my point, freedom - if not applicable to everyone - is. not. freedom" Yes, I agree. If a black women has an easier time getting scholarships and grants for their higher education than a white male, what do you call that situation? IF you graduate HS in the top 10% it doesn't mean anything for college anymore, like it used to. Instead, it is about what color your skin is and whether you have genitals or not. Nothing to do with your performance through public school. I think the top 5% of a graduating class should have the liberty of a free college education. So, that is why I don't like talking about race. The racism and discrimination actually goes both ways. It's just very complecated, that is why I think people should just ignore race and ethnicity all together.

 

On the subject of freedom, we largely agree. Freedom is very important to me. I have been observing individual rights and a culture of valuing freedom fading more and more over the years. It is deeply concerning. 

 

On the subject of civil rights, we agree they exist, but for whatever reason you think there should be another civil rights movement? Is that what you are saying? I think the laws have been put into place already. If anything, adding more laws and regulations is what is keeping racism alive, in my view.

Yes, it certainly is complicated, but that's nowhere near a good enough reason not to the tackle issues that remain. You were the one that brought up the civil rights movement; I simply meant that just because it happened, doesn't mean everything has been solved as best it can be. These things can and do regress if left to their own devices. The Brexit vote in the UK reinforced nationalistic tendencies in many parts of my country. Hate crimes have gone up 42% in England because of the empowerment some people feel after such a vote, and I could not be more disgusted by these narrow-minded oxygen thieves. They voted for something that will ultimately harm them and their livelihoods; like Turkeys voting for Christmas dinner. I would place every penny of my shitty wage on a bet that said DT getting in to power will do the same but on an even larger scale. There's a fine line between Patriotism and Nationalism, and I wonder how many self-claimed Patriots could tell the difference.

 

19 hours ago, DutchTexan said:

You only understand from your level of perception. As do I. When there are at least 2 FBI investigation CURRENTLY on going for Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, then that means a lot more than someone saying Donald might have committed fraud and he might have raped a child. Conveniently, everything happens before election day. For a year and a half the media and popular figures have been performing the same type of attacks on Donald. I stopped buying it 6 months ago.

 

 

"that means a lot more than someone saying Donald might have committed fraud and he might have raped a child"

 

I'm sorry, but that sums up everything that concerns me about the current US mindset. To casually dismiss something so vile as child abuse because it hasn't been proven has the scope to set a horrific precedence; he is facing a civil lawsuit for a crime that couldn't be much worse. Conversely, an active FBI investigation does not equate to proof of wrong-doing unless the investigations have actually concluded. It is just as easy to highlight the fact that the FBI handling of an investigation that conveniently came to light 11-days before the election is highly suspicious. It is typical FBI practice not to publicize sensitive information within 60 days prior to an elections, so what exactly has changed? It may well prove that the investigation is in breach of multiple election laws. But hey, if the shit sticks, it will have done it's job no matter how illegitimate it proves to be. And if I have to choose between possible frauds and cover-ups, I would pick that any day over the possibility of child rape by the (potential) soon to be leader of free world. Donald Trump has never held a publicly elected role, and so has never faced anywhere near the same level of scrutiny that comes with it. Being a public figure is not the same thing.

 

"I stopped buying it 6 months ago."

 

That may well turn out to be a big failing of many people. Being suspicious of media horseshit is a necessary measure: being completely detached from it is dangerous. If you write all off as conveniently timed smear, how will you ever be able to recognize anything of fact? There's no point asking me why I attack DT and defend HC when you're doing the exact opposite. The difference being, that I'm commenting as an outsider looking in. I don't/can't vote for either of them. You can. HC is not a vote I would make with anything other than a mindset of the lesser of two evils. The comedian Billy Connolly once said - don't vote for anyone if you wouldn't be happy to buy them a drink. For me, DT represents many of the things I detest in a human being, and the fact that has been publicly endorsed by Nigel Farage couldn't be any more of an own goal as far as I'm concerned (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/24/nigel-farage-donald-trump-rally-hillary-clinton). Rudeness, arrogance, corporate greed and misogynistic tendencies are not something I look for in a leader or a fellow a human. I have no love for Clinton, but given the highly limited nature of a two-horse race...

 

Well. I have run out of time. Thanks again for the game of verbal tennis. 

[DutchTexan]

1 hour ago, Quinnbeast said:

 

 

Thanks for keeping it civil DutchTexan (DT??? Is that you Donald????) - it can become an emotive subject all too easily, which tends to distract from the meat and veg of the argument.

 

I intentionally threw that in as a lazy point of reference (i.e. I didn't check the specific figures), because I consider the exact details irrelevant. For starters, if you take inflation in to account, the family wealth at the point where DT was a child will likely equate to billions in real money today. But moreover, the fact that you corrected billions to "hundreds of millions" without the slightest hint of irony hardly diminishes my point. Making a lot of money when your starting point is hundreds of millions of dollars is not noteworthy; under no circumstances does it represent someone who has built a business from the ground up, merely a basic level of competence. In fact, for me it represents the imposition of a truly corporate mindset into a position of political power.

 

That reads like a valid argument, but it is vague enough not actually mean anything. Which people should take care of the poor. Who are they? Why should they? Because the government won't or shouldn't? What environment/ecosystem should be provided while also contributing "nothing" directly? You seem to have a disjointed understanding of what it means to be poor, and from your tone, I assume you see that being poor equates to being lazy? It's the same mindset that suggests that if you're successful, then you only have yourself the thank for that, which is almost always not the case, because it ignores every other economic and social factor. There are of course examples that back up a rags-to-riches tale, but they are the exception to the rule. If everyone has equal opportunities in life, why isn't someone who was previously homeless or destitute running for president? What happens when a single mother of four loses her husband (the primary earner) in an accident? What happens when someone who has paid taxes their whole live becomes disabled due to illness and can no longer afford their home? Why should I pay tax for twenty years only to be given categorically fuck-all support if I fall ill and am unable continue my current line of work? Perhaps there are sufficient variations in our governments that something is getting lost in the translation here... hopefully you see my point.

 

Yes, it certainly is complicated, but that's nowhere near a good enough reason not to the tackle issues that remain. You were the one that brought up the civil rights movement; I simply meant that just because it happened, doesn't mean everything has been solved as best it can be. These things can and do regress if left to their own devices. The Brexit vote in the UK reinforced nationalistic tendencies in many parts of my country. Hate crimes have gone up 42% in England because of the empowerment some people feel after such a vote, and I could not be more disgusted by these narrow-minded oxygen thieves. They voted for something that will ultimately harm them and their livelihoods; like Turkeys voting for Christmas dinner. I would place every penny of my shitty wage on a bet that said DT getting in to power will do the same but on an even larger scale. There's a fine line between Patriotism and Nationalism, and I wonder how many self-claimed Patriots could tell the difference.

 

 

"that means a lot more than someone saying Donald might have committed fraud and he might have raped a child"

 

I'm sorry, but that sums up everything that concerns me about the current US mindset. To casually dismiss something so vile as child abuse because it hasn't been proven is has the scope to set a horrific precedence - he is facing a civil lawsuit. Conversely, an active FBI investigation does not equate to proof of wrong-doing unless the investigations have actually concluded. It is just as easy to highlight the fact that the FBI handling of an investigation that conveniently came to light 11-days before the election is highly suspicious. It is typical FBI practice not to publicize sensitive information within 60 days prior to an elections, so what exactly has changed? It may well prove that the investigation is in breach of multiple election laws. But hey, if the shit sticks, it will have done it's job no matter how illegitimate it proves to be. And if I have to choose between possible frauds and cover-ups, I would pick that any day over the possibility of child rape by the (potential) soon to be leader of free world. Donald Trump has never held a publicly elected role, and so has never faced anywhere near the same level of scrutiny that comes with it. Being a public figure is not the same thing.

 

"I stopped buying it 6 months ago."

 

That may well turn out to be a big failing of many people. Being suspicious of media horseshit is a necessary measure: being completely detached from it is dangerous. If you write all off as conveniently timed smear, how will you ever be able to recognize anything of fact? There's no point asking me why I attack DT and defend HC when you're doing the exact opposite. The difference being, that I'm commenting as an outsider looking in. I don't/can't vote for either of them. You can. HC is not a vote I would make with anything other than a mindset of the lesser of two evils. The comedian Billy Connolly once said - don't vote for anyone if you wouldn't be happy to buy them a drink. For me, DT represents many of the things I detest in a human being, and the fact that has been publicly endorsed by Nigel Farage couldn't be any more of an own goal as far as I'm concerned (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/24/nigel-farage-donald-trump-rally-hillary-clinton). Rudeness, arrogance, corporate greed and misogynistic tendencies are not something I look for in a leader or a fellow a human. I have no love for Clinton, but given the highly limited nature of a two-horse race...

 

Well. I have run out of time. Thanks again for the game of verbal tennis. 

My name is DutchTexan, becasue I was born in South Africa and my native language is Afrikaans. Which is a language mixed of Dutch and half German. I have more Dutch in my family history than English and German, but that is essentially what I am; pure blood South African which is a almost half Dutch and German and with a little third party of English heritage. I love the Dutch.

 

300,000,000 is a big number. 5,000,000,000 is a bigger number. That's all I said. Do you hate rich people? Are you assuming affluence is evil? That is what I am getting from you. Sure, he had an easier start than the vast majority of people. However, his financial growth is still significant. Growing that money to such a degree is by no means 'easy' or a given. It is actually much easier to throw away. That is why I mentioned "You can throw anything away" Gigantic companies, rich celebrates, power couples and influential people fall apart, frequently do you upper management catastrophes. I think you are trying to discredit him a little too much. The whole inflation argument is good, but not that good. 5 thousand million dollars from 300 million, that is significant. To me, that kind of money could represent the evil you are talking about. It could also represent an understanding of that evil at the highest level and recognizing how it thrives. If someone was to correct that evil, they have to understand it; that corrective ability won't come from someone who has not truly observed it. Being in his position is good, in my view, becasue he essentially self-funded his campaign, which is extremely significant. You can't argue pouring 60-120 million of your own dollars into your own campaign is a bad thing vs. what will probably end up as way over 500 million of foreign entities and special interests propping up the other campaign. In conclusion, I think most people can't even handle $50,000 in debt, let alone a million dollar loan. I think most people can't grow their families wealth by a factor of 2, let alone a factor of over 1,500. That is significant, no matter how you want to spin it as being 'easy' or a "basic competence". Mind you, basic competence is something our government is severely lacking.

 

" but they are the exception to the rule."

You said achieving the American dream is an exception to the rule? I think the disabled and needy people you are describing are also an exception to the rule. There are people out there that truly need help and they're just not getting it. Like our veterans. I do everything I can for those who are in need or less fortunate, becasue I have empathy. Although, if you are poor, I truly believe there are ways out of it. Anyone can achieve anything, you have to believe this. This is the American dream and it needs to exist or this country has failed. You asking me which people should take care of the poor, unfortunately, illustrates your understanding of taking care of the poor. Have you ever heard of the bystander effect? "Someone else will take care of it" So, now nothing gets taken care of. No one person or group should take care of the poor, we should all help neighbors to the best of our ability. We the people should take care of people in need. If the governemnt was actually doing it, why is poverty an issue in the states? If the governemnt was responsible, why do these situations you are describing an issue? The truth is the governemnt is not responsible nor should it be. It wouldn't be able to love or adminster proper justice in that respect. It can do some, but not really an appropriate amount or fulfill the required response. You are responsible. I am responsible. A women lost her husband and her child along with her house in a flood this year at our church. We started a gofundme thing along with a bunch of other personal donations. Now, she is going much better and is not completely fucked, like she was. If the government were to do something similar, it would help, don't get me wrong, but it would never be capable of doing enough. It would not be capable of understand who is really in need. The government cannot love. 

 

Now, you attacking nationalism is interesting. I agree most people do not know the subtle difference between the two. HOWEVER, what is wrong with sovereignty? I understand nationalism can be a dangerous thing. It starts wars, but then again, it wins wars too  I can't say that I have a full understanding of Brexit, but this is what I think: People are tired of their country not being their country. All the damages, them 'hurting themselves' is interesting, becasue it is true. Much like a teenager that moves out on their own, becasue they are stubborn and want to be independent. However, with a nation it is almost the same, but then again totally different. Funny, no? We are talking about sovereignty? Are we not, with the subject of brexit? Like I said, I'm not going to pretend I know what I am talking about, but that is what I think. If the people of Germany and the Nederlands were to follow suit, leave the EU, what would happen to the EU? Could it survive without those three nations? Surely, if France followed, then the EU falls apart. Which is interesting, becasue, in my eyes at least, the EU is a product of a post world war era. It failing would indicate bigger issues, globally. But who am I to think this. What do you think?

 

 

 

Here things get fun. The FBI investigation being reopened could be suspicious. However, it wouldn't be if you understood the case, the fact that the director summariezed actions which are illegal and then proceeded to not indict was nothing short of shocking. If you follow that specific case, then you will conclude there was 'no evidence' to indict her. However, in reality, every piece of incriminating evidence, well all of it that was public, was conveniently not applied to the case? It is so simple and obvious that it is just hilarious. For example, she lied to the FBI... that is against the law, people are thrown in jail for that. 

 

Donald and his civil suits. Interesting that you stick to that. He could, he could not. Do you follow Wikileaks? What if I told you Bill has raped several children. What if I told you about all the satanic stuff going on with the Clinton's. What if you found out about the 650,000 emails on her ex attorneys husbands laptop, who is also an alleged pedophile. What if you expanded into the whole ritual blood drinking and eating babies things. What about all the human trafficking tied to the Clintons, not just in Haiti? It is just literally the most crazy and most insanely evil stuff one could imagine and yet I wholeheartedly believe it to be true. So, I guess it is weird that I can entertain satanic rituals, child sex rings, and human trafficking but not what you are bringing up. I suppose we are both brainwashed. WikiLeaks. Had it not have been for Wikileaks with all their information, I would have called bullshit. If Wikileaks puts out incriminating information on Donald, then I will believe it. I have full faith in Wikileaks. I have looked into what people have to say bad about Donald, and some of the videos of him speaking and discrediting himself is alarming, but ultimately, he is no where near as bad as Hillary. He is not perfect, or honestly, not really even that good, but in my eyes Hillary is honestly as worse as they come.

 

Donald will be president, just watch.

 

[Quinnbeast]

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

300,000,000 is a big number. 5,000,000,000 is a bigger number. That's all I said. Do you hate rich people? Are you assuming affluence is evil? That is what I am getting from you. Sure, he had an easier start than the vast majority of people. However, his financial growth is still significant. Growing that money to such a degree is by no means 'easy' or a given. It is actually much easier to throw away. That is why I mentioned "You can throw anything away" Gigantic companies, rich celebrates, power couples and influential people fall apart, frequently do you upper management catastrophes. I think you are trying to discredit him a little too much. The whole inflation argument is good, but not that good. 5 thousand million dollars from 300 million, that is significant. To me, that kind of money could represent the evil you are talking about. It could also represent an understanding of that evil at the highest level and recognizing how it thrives. If someone was to correct that evil, they have to understand it; that corrective ability won't come from someone who has not truly observed it. Being in his position is good, in my view, becasue he essentially self-funded his campaign, which is extremely significant. You can't argue pouring 60-120 million of your own dollars into your own campaign is a bad thing vs. what will probably end up as way over 500 million of foreign entities and special interests propping up the other campaign. In conclusion, I think most people can't even handle $50,000 in debt, let alone a million dollar loan. I think most people can't grow their families wealth by a factor of 2, let alone a factor of over 1,500. That is significant, no matter how you want to spin it as being 'easy' or a "basic competence". Mind you, basic competence is something our government is severely lacking.

Please provide some evidence of his net worth - at best it varies wildly based on who is doing the calculations, at worst it is unknowable. In 2004 he sought a loan from Deutche Bank claiming to be worth $3.5bn. The bank concluded that his net worth was in fact $788m according to their own findings. He personally guaranteed $40m of the loan, which he later defaulted on. This is one of many misrepresentations of his successes, and is more important than his supporters are prepared to acknowledge. He was bailed out innumerable times by his father during the 1970s. His greatest strength is self-promotion, often at the expense of sound business strategy. In his time, he has been the proud owner of a bankruptcy figure of $3.4 billion... and he even lied about that figure, claiming that he in fact recovered from $10billion hole (supposedly because it shows his grit at being able to recover). Does that sound competent? The list of similar "details" in almost endless.

 

For a man who has never held so much as a council seat, I'm struggling to find clear evidence either his business acumen or his political experience. He's a serial tax-dodger from what little we know, whereas Clinton at least has released every tax return for the last 40-ish years. 

 

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091?rm=eu

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/why-donald-trump-isn-t-the-successful-businessman-he-claims-to-be-us-elections-republican-politics-7173666.html

 

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

Here things get fun. The FBI investigation being reopened could be suspicious. However, it wouldn't be if you understood the case, the fact that the director summariezed actions which are illegal and then proceeded to not indict was nothing short of shocking. If you follow that specific case, then you will conclude there was 'no evidence' to indict her. However, in reality, every piece of incriminating evidence, well all of it that was public, was conveniently not applied to the case? It is so simple and obvious that it is just hilarious. For example, she lied to the FBI... that is against the law, people are thrown in jail for that. 

 

Donald and his civil suits. Interesting that you stick to that. He could, he could not. Do you follow Wikileaks? What if I told you Bill has raped several children. What if I told you about all the satanic stuff going on with the Clinton's. What if you found out about the 650,000 emails on her ex attorneys husbands laptop, who is also an alleged pedophile. What if you expanded into the whole ritual blood drinking and eating babies things. What about all the human trafficking tied to the Clintons, not just in Haiti? It is just literally the most crazy and most insanely evil stuff one could imagine and yet I wholeheartedly believe it to be true. So, I guess it is weird that I can entertain satanic rituals, child sex rings, and human trafficking but not what you are bringing up. I suppose we are both brainwashed. WikiLeaks. Had it not have been for Wikileaks with all their information, I would have called bullshit. If Wikileaks puts out incriminating information on Donald, then I will believe it. I have full faith in Wikileaks. I have looked into what people have to say bad about Donald, and some of the videos of him speaking and discrediting himself is alarming, but ultimately, he is no where near as bad as Hillary. He is not perfect, or honestly, not really even that good, but in my eyes Hillary is honestly as worse as they come.

 

Donald will be president, just watch.

 

 

I'll say it again. The FBI investigation itself may be illegal. Not interested in that minor detail?

 

As for accusations made against Bill... well, Bill isn't running for presidency last time I checked. And no, I don't follow Wikileaks for the most part, but given how their recent twitter timeline reads like a crude propaganda machine, I'm not sure how helpful they really are. Unbiased they most certainly are not. Are they claiming he ate babies? Drank blood? LOLZ. I guess Bill "Beelzebub" Clinton is a very bad man indeed. Wikileaks is becoming notorious for digging up a steady stream of "dirt" on certain individuals, and yet appears astonishingly unwilling to publish anything against others. Julian Assange has a growing list of critics, including Edward Snowden. Assange has hinted on several occasions that he would have a preference for Trump presidency. Does that sounds like Wikileaks should be treated as unwavering fact?

 

And yet, despite other claims, nothing said against Trump is sufficiently "bad enough". Well, there we have it folks. Either way, I don't see how any of that acts as a defense against allegations of child rape against a presidential candidate.

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/why-donald-trump-isn-t-the-successful-businessman-he-claims-to-be-us-elections-republican-politics-7173666.html

 

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

" but they are the exception to the rule."

You said achieving the American dream is an exception to the rule? I think the disabled and needy people you are describing are also an exception to the rule. There are people out there that truly need help and they're just not getting it. Like our veterans. I do everything I can for those who are in need or less fortunate, becasue I have empathy. Although, if you are poor, I truly believe there are ways out of it. Anyone can achieve anything, you have to believe this. This is the American dream and it needs to exist or this country has failed. You asking me which people should take care of the poor, unfortunately, illustrates your understanding of taking care of the poor. Have you ever heard of the bystander effect? "Someone else will take care of it" So, now nothing gets taken care of. No one person or group should take care of the poor, we should all help neighbors to the best of our ability. We the people should take care of people in need. If the governemnt was actually doing it, why is poverty an issue in the states? If the governemnt was responsible, why do these situations you are describing an issue? The truth is the governemnt is not responsible nor should it be. It wouldn't be able to love or adminster proper justice in that respect. It can do some, but not really an appropriate amount or fulfill the required response. You are responsible. I am responsible. A women lost her husband and her child along with her house in a flood this year at our church. We started a gofundme thing along with a bunch of other personal donations. Now, she is going much better and is not completely fucked, like she was. If the government were to do something similar, it would help, don't get me wrong, but it would never be capable of doing enough. It would not be capable of understand who is really in need. The government cannot love. 

 

By your own admission, the bystander effect suggests that government intervention of some sort would in fact provide a base level of support that is otherwise not a guarantee if left to the public. Help in finding work, shelter, drug treatments etc. You said "we should all help neighbors to the best of our ability" but by your own logic, many people will not get support if it is merely left to "the people" specifically because of the bystander effect. In a small town I can see how this might work and I too have personal examples of a neighbourhood looking after their own, but in NYC? LA? Any major city (i.e. half the population of the US)? You have more faith than I do in the goodness of humanity and prevalence of sound morals to think this can be relied upon. Without some level of administration, it is the luck of the draw whether someone will look out for you. If not, tough shit? The government need not be seen as a headless, nameless entity, incapable of any warmth or compassion. It is run by people, remember? So - to conclude - the government can take your taxes and spend them as they wish, but if you need financial help in return, you're basically on your own (give or take some help from a few kind Samaritans who have no legal obligation to help)? That's some cold shit.

 

Good luck with the elections. I hope you get what you deserve.

[pinksnowmanshandle]

I don't dislike the idea of Voter IDs because of the perceived notion of it suppressing minority voting rights, I dislike the idea because to me it seems like a waste of time to bother with. That being said I also dislike closed primaries/caucuses.