Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, soon said:

Who has called for the US to become a Socialist Country? And Trumps drawing a direct connection to Venezuela here, so he clearly means a Socialist State. Social Democrat policy does not produce a Socialist State. Its not complicated. 

 

No one.

As, @Download said, he'd rather his family starve than benefit from government programs that are socialist-influenced. It is maddening refusal to explore potentially beneficial policy simply because the word 'socialism' for Americans has been associated with socialist states that have failed, in particular the USSR as the Cold War adversary.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't watch it but caught the discussions on the news channels today.

I want to smack that Pelosi right in her smug face.

I don't agree with everything Trump has said now or in the past, but she's just such a disrespectful bitch and I wish she would get impeached.

I doubt anything will change because neither Trump nor Pelosi will give in and America still suffers with all the bullshit.

2020 can't get here fast enough. I really hope someone who is a smart and caring American can win the next election or we're all doomed to continue the insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, marlingrl03 said:

He was maybe referring to one of our female senators who calls herself a democrat socialist...

Yeah, maybe AOC? Right, and thats kinda what Im meaning to say. She's not proposing anything that would alter the US Constitution and transition your fine Nation into a Socialist Country, as Trump was asserting.

I dont want to assume your position on any of this. But I just wanna mention in general that my Member of Provincial Parliament is actually from the Democratic Socialist party in Canada, the New Democratic Party (NDP). He's great! The NDP is the Official Opposition party where I live in Ontario (meaning they have second most seats in Parliament, out of multiple parties). They Govern at least one Province currently, off the top of my head. They're a big part of our Countries political community. And every things going well here.

 

1 hour ago, Jakey Styley said:

It seems like there's no reason at all for these "Democratic Socialists" to continue branding themselves as such in America. It clearly just cannot get by the American people, the government spent nearly half a century convincing the public of how dirty a word "Socialism" is. Besides, the sort of political/economic structure that those like Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez (or whatever her name is) advocate for is so far from socialism that there's no point in carrying the name. It's just capitalism with a stronger welfare state (although "welfare" is also a dirty word in America with its own history, so they should probably avoid that phrasing too)

Well said. In Canada thats pretty much how the Social Dems roll. The New Democratic Party is the Social Dem party and it's politicians are referred to as "New Democrats." 

Most neighbourhoods Ive ever lived in see the Marxist-Leninist Party (MLP) and the Communist Party of Canada (CPC) run people for local and Provincial seats. The current leader of the CPC, Liz Rowley, was elected as the School Board Trustee in our capitalist hub of Toronto, in 1995. Liz is awesome! But at no point does the electorate get nervous about the Communists and we all see a clear distinction between them and the New Democratic Party, who remain a represented and viable party.

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

didn't watch it but caught the discussions on the news channels today.

I want to smack that Pelosi right in her smug face.

I don't agree with everything Trump has said now or in the past, but she's just such a disrespectful bitch and I wish she would get impeached.

I doubt anything will change because neither Trump nor Pelosi will give in and America still suffers with all the bullshit.

2020 can't get here fast enough. I really hope someone who is a smart and caring American can win the next election or we're all doomed to continue the insanity.

Your comments on Pelosi are disgusting.  

Extolling violence and referring to someone as a disrespectful bitch because you don't appreciate her body language to someone like Trump ridiculous.  

Quite frankly, it's attitudes like this that dirty the political waters.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

didn't watch it but caught the discussions on the news channels today.

I want to smack that Pelosi right in her smug face.

I don't agree with everything Trump has said now or in the past, but she's just such a disrespectful bitch and I wish she would get impeached.

Maybe Trump could grab her by the pussy? That'd put that bitch in her place eh? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Great nations do not fight endless wars” says the guy whose national security adviser is John Bolton and secretary of state is Mike Pompeo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump will be reelected and honestly I think there'll be a civil war regardless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

No one.

As, @Download said, he'd rather his family starve than benefit from government programs that are socialist-influenced. It is maddening refusal to explore potentially beneficial policy simply because the word 'socialism' for Americans has been associated with socialist states that have failed, in particular the USSR as the Cold War adversary.

 

No, what I said was that I would rather die penniless because of my own doing than have big government in my life. I would. How much of my pay check should I be entitled to? I was a highschool dropout that bounced from one job to the next and was angry at the world because the capitalist system was setup for people like me to fail. Its kind of like establishing credit for the first time. No one wants to loan you money because you have no credit/proof that you will pay it back. Well how in the hell can I pay it back unless you loan me some money to pay back? In my mid 20's I just became really honest with myself, the effort I was putting in, I stopped blaming others, and I  took a real hard look in the mirror. At 23 I had no real skills and had nothing to offer an employer and 15 years later I own my own HVAC company and put people to work. People that will show up and work in 140 degree attics for a decent pay check, no glory and little recognition.  Its not hard to be out of poverty in America. 1. Graduate Highschool  2. Get a Job and 3. Wait until you're married to have a kid. You do those three things and you will not be permanently poor in this country. Im all for helping others when they are in need. You have any remotely idea how many HVAC systems Ive fixed  over the last 15 years for free because a customer couldn't afford it? Any earthly idea how many hours Ive worked for free? Its a good feeling to fix a single mother with two kids heat so they can sleep in a house and not freeze to death. Im not judging her as she is probably doing the best she can, shes probably working two jobs and trying to go to school and get a degree. Maybe she made some mistakes and shes trying to right her ship or maybe shes doing exactly what she wants to do and putting forth just enough effort to live paycheck to paycheck. Im all for a safety net in a time of need. Im not for that safety net being a career choice when you're holding a gun to my head demanding my money. Im a firm believer in personal responsibility. Im a firm believer in taking care of my family, and im willing to work 80hrs a week to do so. You may feel its morally right to steal my money because you think the ends justifies the means, but I don't. I would not pass one piece of legislation that steals money from you. If you want to contribute more im sure the government would be more than happy to take all the money you want to send them.

Edited by Download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

I want to smack that Pelosi right in her smug face.

I don't agree with everything Trump has said now or in the past, but she's just such a disrespectful bitch and I wish she would get impeached.

I thought Pelosi showed lots of restraint during Trump's speech and handled herself quite well. She only once had to visibly suppress a burst of laughter. Don't get why that makes her a "disrespectful bitch" with a "smug face" that you would like to "smack" and have "impeached". What exactly would the cause for impeachment be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dazey said:

Maybe Trump could grab her by the pussy? That'd put that bitch in her place eh? ;) 

If she's anything like that pic you texted me yesterday he'll have to use both hands :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

 

 

Thank god for the factcheckers. NowThis News.

You have to be desperate to post that video, fake news at its finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Download said:

No, what I said was that I would rather die penniless because of my own doing than have big government in my life. I would. How much of my pay check should I be entitled to? I was a highschool dropout that bounced from one job to the next and was angry at the world because the capitalist system was setup for people like me to fail. Its kind of like establishing credit for the first time. No one wants to loan you money because you have no credit/proof that you will pay it back. Well how in the hell can I pay it back unless you loan me some money to pay back? In my mid 20's I just became really honest with myself, the effort I was putting in, I stopped blaming others, and I  took a real hard look in the mirror. At 23 I had no real skills and had nothing to offer an employer and 15 years later I own my own HVAC company and put people to work. People that will show up and work in 140 degree attics for a decent pay check, no glory and little recognition.  Its not hard to be out of poverty in America. 1. Graduate Highschool  2. Get a Job and 3. Wait until you're married to have a kid. You do those three things and you will not be permanently poor in this country. Im all for helping others when they are in need. You have any remotely idea how many HVAC systems Ive fixed  over the last 15 years for free because a customer couldn't afford it? Any earthly idea how many hours Ive worked for free? Its a good feeling to fix a single mother with two kids heat so they can sleep in a house and not freeze to death. Im not judging her as she is probably doing the best she can, shes probably working two jobs and trying to go to school and get a degree. Maybe she made some mistakes and shes trying to right her ship or maybe shes doing exactly what she wants to do and putting forth just enough effort to live paycheck to paycheck. Im all for a safety net in a time of need. Im not for that safety net being a career choice when you're holding a gun to my head demanding my money. Im a firm believer in personal responsibility. Im a firm believer in taking care of my family, and im willing to work 80hrs a week to do so. You may feel its morally right to steal my money because you think the ends justifies the means, but I don't. I would not pass one piece of legislation that steals money from you. If you want to contribute more im sure the government would be more than happy to take all the money you want to send them.

That is a nice story (genuinely, no sarcasm intended), but it's an anecdote and it's not exactly what we (or I, or whoever) are talking about when we advocate for economic equality in this country. No one is trying to steal your paycheck and redistribute it to people who are otherwise able to work, but are just lazy - that is the conservative narrative of what 'socialism' in America would be like. But that's not the reality. The reality is the very wealthy get away with hundreds of billions of dollars of tax avoidance through loopholes and unfair rules (like 1+ year held capital gains being taxed roughly 50% less than under 1 year). Another major component to economic equality is responsibly managing federal spending: like not spending $5B on a border security method that has significant flaws, more investments in education, slightly easing military spending, not giving new tax breaks to the ultra rich, etc.

Your three steps for success are nice on paper, but reality is different and often more difficult. There are a variety of circumstances that inhibit people from progressing in the manner you did, those reasons can be both external and/or internal - some may be their fault and some may not. Everyone has a different story, so applying yours as a "standard" may make sense for you and a host of other people, but there are people whose experiences are incongruent with yours. The [real] example you gave of the mother you helped is what we're talking about. Someone working two jobs and advancing their education and raising kids (possibly without the help of a spouse) is likely in need of social assistance. I'm not sure what you mean by safety net being a career choice, are you implying people who could otherwise work and put in effort simply abuse social programs to avoid working? If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that practice being rampant.  

Regardless of the nomenclature used in your original quote (which I've pasted here), the idea expressed is: I'd rather die penniless than accept government assistance. Has the conservative narrative frightened you so much you'd rather die than accept help from a social program if you were in need?

Quote

Capitalism isn’t perfect. Its flawed af, but I would rather die without a dime to my name because of my own doing than have big government in my life. 

Personally, I'd rather live and accept assistance whilst I needed it. :shrugs:

6 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

Thank god for the factcheckers. NowThis News.

You have to be desperate to post that video, fake news at its finest.

You could literally look up all of the figures yourself if you didn't want everything spoon-fed to you by Fox. But, it's far less effort to just post videos and claim "fake news" than it is to learn about something and genuinely debate.

EDIT: And actually, I was debating with conservatives on another forum a week ago and I relied on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the government) for many of my figures - some of which Trump discussed and got wrong. It's not difficult to find the data.

Edited by OmarBradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dazey said:

Maybe Trump could grab her by the pussy? That'd put that bitch in her place eh? ;) 

She should just resign and go back to the kitchen and make pasta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OmarBradley said:

That is a nice story (genuinely, no sarcasm intended), but it's an anecdote and it's not exactly what we (or I, or whoever) are talking about when we advocate for economic equality in this country. No one is trying to steal your paycheck and redistribute it to people who are otherwise able to work, but are just lazy - that is the conservative narrative of what 'socialism' in America would be like. But that's not the reality. The reality is the very wealthy get away with hundreds of billions of dollars of tax avoidance through loopholes and unfair rules (like 1+ year held capital gains being taxed roughly 50% less than under 1 year). Another major component to economic equality is responsibly managing federal spending: like not spending $5B on a border security method that has significant flaws, more investments in education, slightly easing military spending, not giving new tax breaks to the ultra rich, etc.

Your three steps for success are nice on paper, but reality is different and often more difficult. There are a variety of circumstances that inhibit people from progressing in the manner you did, those reasons can be both external and/or internal - some may be their fault and some may not. Everyone has a different story, so applying yours as a "standard" may make sense for you and a host of other people, but there are people whose experiences are incongruent with yours. The [real] example you gave of the mother you helped is what we're talking about. Someone working two jobs and advancing their education and raising kids (possibly without the help of a spouse) is likely in need of social assistance. I'm not sure what you mean by safety net being a career choice, are you implying people who could otherwise work and put in effort simply abuse social programs to avoid working? If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that practice being rampant.  

Regardless of the nomenclature used in your original quote (which I've pasted here), the idea expressed is: I'd rather die penniless than accept government assistance. Has the conservative narrative frightened you so much you'd rather die than accept help from a social program if you were in need?

Personally, I'd rather live and accept assistance whilst I needed it. :shrugs:

You could literally look up all of the figures yourself if you didn't want everything spoon-fed to you by Fox. But, it's far less effort to just post videos and claim "fake news" than it is to learn about something and genuinely debate.

EDIT: And actually, I was debating with conservatives on another forum a week ago and I relied on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the government) for many of my figures - some of which Trump discussed and got wrong. It's not difficult to find the data.

So then what you're saying is you rely on confirmation bias? I can provide facts that support my claim just as you can find some that can confirm yours, so around and around we go. What are you saying exactly? The rich rely on capitalism to keep the poor without a system to climb out of whatever pitfalls they are in? Are you saying its impossible to climb up the economic ladder?  Some have it worse than others? Ok, and what? What is the answer to it? I pay roughly 40% in taxes. How much more should I pay? 

Edit:

You would like to stats and figures on rather or not people abuse social programs? 

How about 77.8 billion dollars in welfare fraud. You’re freaking out about 5 billion for a wall?  

 

Edited by Download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Download said:

So then what you're saying is you rely on confirmation bias? I can provide facts that support my claim just as you can find some that can confirm yours, so around and around we go. What are you saying exactly? The rich rely on capitalism to keep the poor without a system to climb out of whatever pitfalls they are in? Are you saying its impossible to climb up the economic ladder?  Some have it worse than others? Ok, and what? What is the answer to it? I pay roughly 40% in taxes. How much more should I pay? 

Edit:

You would like to stats and figures on rather or not people abuse social programs? 

How about 77.8 billion dollars in welfare fraud. You’re freaking out about 5 billion for a wall?  

 

Investigating the data surrounding these issues and forming my views based on science and data is not confirmation bias - forming your political view from your individual experience of  being able to improve your personal conditions is confirmation bias. Which claim are you referring to? I don't see you supporting it with verified facts.

"Around and around we go" encapsulates it nicely - I post facts, statistics, and political science. Yet each time, I am met with "fake news", "socialism", "wall = good border security." It does get tiring. :lol:

I don't think it's as black and white as "the rich rely on capitalism to keep the poor..." In my opinion, a major issue in American politics is the simplification of problem-solving and describing issues. The world is complicated, you haven't solved economic inequality, immigration, healthcare, etc. by sitting in your living room and watching the news and viewing assorted news sites (not necessarily directed at you personally). However, your fraud figure is an excellent example of this.

Data points alone are hardly an argument. They need to be contextualized. The data on welfare fraud is not terribly rigorous unfortunately. But I do see the figure you are referring to, it is for 2016, which happens to be the year with the highest rate of fraud. I can only find one source discussing this figure and while I think it's better than most DIY political sites, it's not quite the Pew Center either. It is out of date too, since the 2017 data is public. The most glaring figures are the Medicaid and income tax credit improper payments (and the VA figures at the bottom, but glancing over the descriptions it looks like '100%' is a technicality). However, what qualifies as 'fraud' does not necessarily mean an individual has malevolently tried to game the system. Bureaucracy and employee error accounts for some portion of improper payments. 

The figures for improper payments on Medicaid and the income tax credit are high, I agree with you they are problematic as they seem to comprise at least 1/10th of welfare spending. But I don't see how noting there is waste in welfare justifies the wall, or dismisses new/other social programs. There is waste in many parts of the government. 

I am not "freaking out" because the wall [allegedly] will cost $5B. I am against budgeting $5B for a border security solution that is demonstrably flawed.

And simply stating there was $77.8B in welfare fraud in one FY does not prove their is rampant welfare fraud in the sense I think you are implying. And I'm not sure what your argument is, is it: because there is welfare fraud, we shouldn't expand social programs because that would increase fraud - is that it? Because expanding programs also increases the amount of genuine beneficiaries. The 90% who are doing things correctly don't deserve help because of the 10% that commit fraud? (semi-random figures, but you get my point)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Download said:

So then what you're saying is you rely on confirmation bias? I can provide facts that support my claim just as you can find some that can confirm yours, so around and around we go. What are you saying exactly? The rich rely on capitalism to keep the poor without a system to climb out of whatever pitfalls they are in? Are you saying its impossible to climb up the economic ladder?  Some have it worse than others? Ok, and what? What is the answer to it? I pay roughly 40% in taxes. How much more should I pay? 

Edit:

You would like to stats and figures on rather or not people abuse social programs? 

How about 77.8 billion dollars in welfare fraud. You’re freaking out about 5 billion for a wall?  

 

Right, because confirmation bias is only limited to those who hold opposing views...

You claim to provide facts and figures to support your claim, but you'd rather not.  The one "fact" you provide ($77.8 billion in welfare fraud) is not actually a fact, since it fails to understand what the government reports actually say about the matter.  Almost all right-wing news and commentary sites provide this figure and then link the various government agencies where its derived.  Except that these same sites never provide the context and what the reports are actually saying.  $77.8 billion doesn't represent fraud, but the total number of improper payments by the U.S. federal government.  An improper payment does not equal fraud.  Read the article that is often cited in right-wing sites here: https://paymentaccuracy.gov/faq/#5.  Note that it even addresses the myth that an improper payment is tantemount to fraud: 

"Contrary to common perception, not all improper payments are fraud (i.e., an intentional misuse of funds). In fact, the vast majority of improper payments are due to unintentional errors. For example, an error may occur because a program does not have documentation to support a beneficiary’s eligibility for a benefit, or an eligible beneficiary receives a payment that is too high—or too low—due to a data entry mistake."

It even corrects the myth that all improper payments constitutes a monetary loss for the government:

"Another prevalent misunderstanding is that all improper payments are a loss to the government, but that is not always the case.  Also, many of the overpayments are payments that may have been proper, but were labeled improper due to a lack of documentation confirming payment accuracy."

-------------------------------

This is the biggest problem I have with right-wing and conservative leaning publications and supporters.  Too often there's little concern with "facts" as they relate to truth.  

Here's an example:

The President wants a wall. Why?  

"Because it will stop drugs from coming into the country."  

"Almost all drugs are smuggled through official border crossings so a wall wouldn't do anything.  What else do you got?"

"Terrorist threats."

"There are none, at least according to all major intelligence and homeland defence agencies.  Next"

"Will stop illegal aliens from entering the country."

"First, no it won't.  Second, most illegal aliens are a result of people abusing their travel/work visas.  Anything else?"

"It's only $5 billion."

"Nonsense.  Most estimates put the wall at $25-$40 billion to build and hundreds of millions to billions more per year to maintain.  That $5 billion is simply a downpayment on a project that will take a lot more money."

--------------------------------

Nobody is asking you to pay more than 40 percent.  The tax argument isn't about people like you and I. It's about the uber-wealthy and billionaires, a class that, let's face it, neither of you and I will ever belong to.  

Look, this isn't the first time America and other developed nations have witnessed a concentration of wealth.  Read your history; learn about the Gilded Age.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

And simply stating there was $77.8B in welfare fraud in one FY does not prove their is rampant welfare fraud in the sense I think you are implying. And I'm not sure what your argument is, is it: because there is welfare fraud, we shouldn't expand social programs because that would increase fraud - is that it? Because expanding programs also increases the amount of genuine beneficiaries. The 90% who are doing things correctly don't deserve help because of the 10% that commit fraud? (semi-random figures, but you get my point)

Your whole post is spot on, but your last point brings up a contradiction often heard from those who decry public welfare and champion private industry.  

Too often we hear people claiming that the government needs to be run like a business.  I've heard conservative friends and family members refer to government waste who then boast about all the ways they dupe their private employers in a variety of ways - from overcharging for mileage to taking office supplies to lying about being sick and not being able to work.  Biggest hypocrites out there.  

This is to say nothing about the amount of waste and mismanagement of resources found in almost every business out there.  It's as though people who work in the private sector who bash public sector employees have blinders on to the inefficiencies and waste prevalent in every business out there.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

Right, because confirmation bias is only limited to those who hold opposing views...

You claim to provide facts and figures to support your claim, but you'd rather not.  The one "fact" you provide ($77.8 billion in welfare fraud) is not actually a fact, since it fails to understand what the government reports actually say about the matter.  Almost all right-wing news and commentary sites provide this figure and then link the various government agencies where its derived.  Except that these same sites never provide the context and what the reports are actually saying.  $77.8 billion doesn't represent fraud, but the total number of improper payments by the U.S. federal government.  An improper payment does not equal fraud.  Read the article that is often cited in right-wing sites here: https://paymentaccuracy.gov/faq/#5.  Note that it even addresses the myth that an improper payment is tantemount to fraud: 

"Contrary to common perception, not all improper payments are fraud (i.e., an intentional misuse of funds). In fact, the vast majority of improper payments are due to unintentional errors. For example, an error may occur because a program does not have documentation to support a beneficiary’s eligibility for a benefit, or an eligible beneficiary receives a payment that is too high—or too low—due to a data entry mistake."

It even corrects the myth that all improper payments constitutes a monetary loss for the government:

"Another prevalent misunderstanding is that all improper payments are a loss to the government, but that is not always the case.  Also, many of the overpayments are payments that may have been proper, but were labeled improper due to a lack of documentation confirming payment accuracy."

-------------------------------

This is the biggest problem I have with right-wing and conservative leaning publications and supporters.  Too often there's little concern with "facts" as they relate to truth.  

Here's an example:

The President wants a wall. Why?  

"Because it will stop drugs from coming into the country."  

"Almost all drugs are smuggled through official border crossings so a wall wouldn't do anything.  What else do you got?"

"Terrorist threats."

"There are none, at least according to all major intelligence and homeland defence agencies.  Next"

"Will stop illegal aliens from entering the country."

"First, no it won't.  Second, most illegal aliens are a result of people abusing their travel/work visas.  Anything else?"

"It's only $5 billion."

"Nonsense.  Most estimates put the wall at $25-$40 billion to build and hundreds of millions to billions more per year to maintain.  That $5 billion is simply a downpayment on a project that will take a lot more money."

--------------------------------

Nobody is asking you to pay more than 40 percent.  The tax argument isn't about people like you and I. It's about the uber-wealthy and billionaires, a class that, let's face it, neither of you and I will ever belong to.  

Look, this isn't the first time America and other developed nations have witnessed a concentration of wealth.  Read your history; learn about the Gilded Age.  

Why do you care about how much money the Uber wealthy has and how they should be spending it? Or billionaires? How much of their wealth should they be entitled to? 

How do you just dismiss 78 Billion dollars in welfare fraud? Or improper payments that include welfare fraud. Because it doesn’t fit your narrative? 78 Billion dollars in oops I sent the wrong amount to someone? 😂 Oops the government messed up but just tax the wealthy more and we’ll get it right. 

As far as the wall goes, I don’t really care. The wall is not a hill I would die on. Yeah, walls work. 

100%? No, but they work. Do walls and gates help keep Axl safe in his Malibu mansion? Do you think he’s all for removing that security wall around his house or gate at the entrance of his driveway? 

Edited by Download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Download said:

 

100%? No, but they work. Do walls and gates help keep Axl safe in his Malibu mansion? Do you think he’s all for removing that security wall around his house or gate at the entrance of his driveway? 

America is not a mansion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Download said:

Why do you care about how much money the Uber wealthy has and how they should be spending it? Or billionaires? How much of their wealth should they be entitled to? 

I care because history has shown that societies, countries and empires have crashed and fallen when inequality gets out of whack.  Again, learn your history.  

There's nothing in nature that states we can't regulate the excesses of wealth.  We can do whatever we want to ensure a more fair and equitable society.  Notice I didn't say equal society.  Please don't make the same straw man argument that I'm call for an equal distribution of wealth.  Just one that doesn't yield extremes in poverty and wealth.

Quote

How do you just dismiss 78 Billion dollars in welfare fraud? Or improper payments that include welfare fraud. Because it doesn’t fit your narrative? 78 Billion dollars in oops I sent the wrong amount to someone? 😂 Oops the government messed up but just tax the wealthy more and we’ll get it right. 

I didn't dismiss $78 billion.  But again you're not be genuine in your argument.  You again refer to it as $78 billion in fraud when that's not the case.  Nobody is arguing that the system can't be improved; that $0 in misappropriation - whether it be fraud or human or systemic error - shouldn't be the goal.  But to throw the baby out with the bath water; that people should go hungry or live in destitution because we don't have a system operating on perfect efficiencies is absurd at best and immoral at worst.  

Quote

As far as the wall goes, I don’t really care. The wall is not a hill I would die on. Yeah, walls work. 

100%? No, but they work. Do walls and gates help keep Axl safe in his Malibu mansion? Do you think he’s all for removing that security wall around his house or gate at the entrance of his driveway? 

Tell that to the people who own ladders, own boats, or dig tunnels.

Sorry, but terrible analogy.  Walls around a person's home and a walled off country are operating on two completely different principles.  Nobody needs to get into Axl's house to escape poverty or threats to their lives.  No wall around Axl's house will stop fans desperate enough to enter his residence.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, downzy said:

I care because history has shown that societies, countries and empires have crashed and fallen when inequality gets out of whack.  Again, learn your history.  

There's nothing in nature that states we can't regulate the excesses of wealth.  We can do whatever we want to ensure a more fair and equitable society.  Notice I didn't say equal society.  Please don't make the same straw man argument that I'm call for an equal distribution of wealth.  Just one that doesn't yield extremes in poverty and wealth.

I didn't dismiss $78 billion.  But again you're not be genuine in your argument.  You again refer to it as $78 billion in fraud when that's not the case.  Nobody is arguing that the system can't be improved; that $0 in misappropriation - whether it be fraud or human or systemic error - shouldn't be the goal.  But to throw the baby out with the bath water; that people should go hungry or live in destitution because we don't have a system operating on perfect efficiencies is absurd at best and immoral at worst.  

Tell that to the people who own ladders, own boats, or dig tunnels.

Sorry, but terrible analogy.  Walls around a person's home and a walled off country are operating on two completely different principles.  Nobody needs to get into Axl's house to escape poverty or threats to their lives.  No wall around Axl's house will stop fans desperate enough to enter his residence.  

 

Inequalities go out of whack when you deviate away from free market enterprise and if you disagree with that then you really need to learn your history. The only cases in recorded history that helps the lot of the masses escape the poverty you're so worried about is a free market enterprise. History is actually crystal clear on that subject.  

Walls around a home and country are the exact same principle. There are lots of people that need to get into Axl's home to escape poverty or threats to their life. How is it different exactly?  You're actually arguing for double standards, lol.

Edited by Download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wall around Axls place didn't keep a drunken Slash out in 2005

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

The wall around Axls place didn't keep a drunken Slash out in 2005

Wasn’t Slash met at the gate by Beta?  Didn’t he hand her a note to give to Axl? 

Edited by Download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×