Jump to content

downzy

Admins
  • Content count

    11,931
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

downzy last won the day on February 28

downzy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,673 Excellent

6 Followers

About downzy

  • Rank
    LEGEND
  • Birthday 04/12/1980

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto, Canada
  • Interests
    Politics, photography, snowboarding, golf, weight lifting, current events, television, running.

Profile Fields

  • Sex
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

22,488 profile views
  1. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Where am I saying the policy shouldn't be discussed in the public space? Criticism of the policy isn't tantamount to shutting down debate. Second, are the criticisms not valid? You don't address any of this. And associating said criticisms with conservative arguments against liberal policy proposals is kind of nuts since criticisms authored by conservatives often don't add up themselves and are often based on false pretences. There are other options out there. Particularly, Elizabeth Warren's plan that caps benefits at $50k and is geared towards lower-income Americans. While it still does nothing to curb post-secondary education costs and could create a boondoggle for higher-education industry, at least it's means-tested and not geared towards the middle-upper class for degrees that will pay significantly higher salaries. Don't think you picked up the sarcasm in Len's post.
  2. US Politics/Elections Thread

    First, for arguments sake, let's say a trillion of dollars are exchanged every day, whether on equities, annuities, bonds, or materials. That's $5 billion, a day, that gets taken out of the stock market. That's a significant amount of money, which leads me to my second point. Wall street would never allow such a bill to come to the floor, let alone pass both the House and Senate. Regardless, it's dumb policy. It rewards those who took out loans to go to college while punishes those scrimped and saved to pay for tuition and board upfront. It punishes those who decided not to go to college because they thought they wouldn't be able to afford. It does nothing to actually control higher education costs. If anything, it gives post-secondary institutions all the more incentive to increase rates/prices since they know government will likely bail them out. The policy is a one time measure and says nothing concerning debt of students years to come. It will proportionally benefit America's upper middle class, since they are more likely to finance advance college degrees (like masters or phd's) through debt. It's just terrible policy described as the worst form of pandering. It's akin to much of what Trump does on a daily basis.
  3. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Very much agreed. If one is going to give Trump and his supporters a hard time for raising the prospects of unrealistic or impossible policy proposals, the same has to be said about Sanders. He's great at generating discussions, but any notion that any of his policies would actually see that light of day is folly. The economic math behind many of his proposals do not add up. America is a rich country and could afford to pay for this policy, but it's impossible to see how a President Sanders would be able to shift Congress's priorities (with their allegiance to corporate lobbyists and vested interests) to allow for something like college debt forgiveness that doesn't blow a hole in the national debt. He's dreaming if he thinks he can levy a tax hike on Wall Street big enough to pay for this measure. And you're correct for not pointing out the absurdity of not means testing policies like this one. He'd be better served by prorating debt forgiveness with family income/wealth.
  4. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I'm not sure why you felt the need to PM the names of ResetERA and Neogaf? Both are examples of a gaming community being hostile towards conservative viewpoints to a certain extent, but neither really address the issue of "public utility" companies like Twitter or Facebook. There are dozens of gaming communities where one can discuss politics if one chooses to. Being banned for holding conservative view points on a gaming site isn't a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. The issue prior was to whether companies like Facebook or Twitter, which could reasonably argued are public services in that they have taken over for in-person community centres, are banning conservative viewpoints or whether they're even allowed to. A gaming forum/platform isn't relative to the discussion.
  5. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I can make a reasonable guess it's not in political science, economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy or history. That I'm sure of. No, liberal/progressivism says not to give them any credibility or quarter. It says nothing about hating them back. "I hate gay people but I considering myself a moral and ethical human being." For. Fucks. Sake.
  6. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Understand that outlawing abortion will not stop abortions from happening. The reality is that those with the means will always find ways to access the procedure, regardless of their public positions. Rich people who want abortion services will simply fly to another state or another country. There's nothing you can do about it. The issue is providing access to said services to poorer women who may not have the means to travel out of state or out of country. Abortion bans are all about ensuring that poor women stay poor. Doesn't matter if the guy fucks off, she's on the hook for the next 19 years. It's ensuring that all the consequences of sex are faced solely by a woman. This isn't about the fetus. It really never has been. It's about controlling women.
  7. US Politics/Elections Thread

    1) My commented wasn't directed at you per se, but another poster who routinely uses discredited information to further their argument. 2) None of the articles I link to are left-leaning. Fact doesn't have a partisan persuasion. 3) I have degrees in American political science and American social studies, and have written a masters thesis on family dynamics and influences on voting and partisanship. While I am by no means an expert, I find it impossible to stomach people who belittle the information of others when they themselves have repeated used false and discredited information.
  8. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Those who are clearly not educated on a variety of issues and have repeatedly demonstrated that fact don’t get to tell others to educate themselves.
  9. US Politics/Elections Thread

    It's funny that social conservatives bring up the border situation. By their own logic, a baby/fetus conceived within the borders of the United States should therefore be considered a U.S. citizen. But that would never happen. They consider it a life deserving of legal protections under the law, but not an American unless it's actually born in America. Some logic...
  10. US Politics/Elections Thread

    The fact that you think those two situations are in any comparable says it all at this point.
  11. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Yes, once it's born. But until that point, no. Your rights and the fetus's rights do not supersede the rights of the pregnant woman since she's the one carrying the fetus.
  12. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Always great to hear from social conservatives who bemoan the "sanctity of life" but could give a fuck once the baby is born. They support Republicans who slash and burn any safety net for under-priviledged mothers but have the gall to consider themselves "pro-life." What a load of shit.
  13. US Politics/Elections Thread

    When you say that a father should have a say, do you mean his preference trumps the pregnant woman? If so, then no, I don't agree. The woman carries the fetus. The final decision is hers.
  14. US Politics/Elections Thread

    For me, a fetus isn't a child and its rights don't take precedent over the woman carrying it. You feel differently. Fine.
  15. US Politics/Elections Thread

    It does if that's what they are. If you're against equality for gay people (or gay people in general), you're bigoted/homophobic. Just like if you have a thing against black people, you're racist. Seems pretty clear cut to me. So essentially you want me to be tolerant of your intolerance. Great, got it.
×