Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 03, 2016, 07:07:22 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 261
76  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders gets testy after being asked about Sandy Hook on: April 06, 2016, 05:22:03 pm
Bernie Sanders is not responsible for Sandy Hook. This is silly. There are other better ways to attack him.
77  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Clinton campaign goes PUMA on: April 06, 2016, 02:41:55 pm
Lol how is calling someone a corrupt liar not a personal attack?!

I'm not sure what Sanders has said or done that equates to calling Clinton a corrupt liar.


... you're kidding, right?

He's spent his whole campaign painting the picture of "us versus them," "good versus bad," "honest versus corrupt." True, the evil boogeyman is Wall Street and the super-wealthy, but if you spend all your days building up that boogeyman and then allege even subtly that Clinton is a part of that, you don't have to actually connect the dots in order for your supporters too... It's still a shady attack meant to undermine her character. Except because he cleverly doesn't say it outright he gets to think of himself as taking the moral high road? Uh, that's not how it works.

And I think it is absolutely hilarious for a Sanders supporter to suddenly care about party unity. At this juncture, there is value in deflating the Bernie balloon. It'll show that Hillary doesn't sit and take it, is prepared to win the nomination with force, and will bring that same vigor to the general election campaign. You talk about party unity, but perhaps there are enough soft Sanders supporters who would be more easily drawn to the Clinton camp by her arguments against Sanders than if the primary went on for months and months with her not hitting back and these supporters getting further indoctrinated into the Cult of the Bern. Bring the guy down to earth and maybe a few of his less entrenched supporters will see reason too. Clearly he will make no effort to unite the party when loses, so Hillary has to force the unity on her own. Good for her.

None of which amounts to a personal attack. It's a serious criticism of the political system that (some) Democrats make quite frequently. I believe that it is a fair criticism and I will vote accordingly; others will disagree on substance, and that's another discussion. But if you can't recognize that, it's a failure of critical thinking.

Deliberately stoking the fire to heavily imply that your opponent is one of the corrupt and morally bankrupt bad guys, without being able to provide any evidence that the person's political work has actually been hijacked by big money, doesn't count as a personal attack? The "substance" is actually pretty clear.

I mean, if you truly can't see the strategy Sanders is employing to debase Clinton's candidacy and malign her character, I'm afraid it's actually a case of you wilfully missing the forest for the trees. And, you know, yeah: It's a strategy that comes with the territory. But I'm not obliged to think it's honourable, especially now that it's clear he can't win the nomination. Any lasting harm he does to Clinton is actually an act of self-sabotage if he really believes in his cause (in fact, you could argue that it's a sabotage of the American people), because like it or not, she's the one who will be in the position of carrying his cause forward once we get to the summer.

And frankly, since he's shown no sign of backing off, it's about time she took the gloves off too.
78  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: McClatchy/Marist National Poll: Sanders +2, Trump +5 on: April 06, 2016, 11:54:00 am
Another reason she needs to go negative on him.

Winning the nomination when national polls show you losing would be awful. If he is allowed to continue unchecked, his numbers will only grow.
79  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Clinton campaign goes PUMA on: April 06, 2016, 11:43:42 am
Lol how is calling someone a corrupt liar not a personal attack?!

I'm not sure what Sanders has said or done that equates to calling Clinton a corrupt liar.


... you're kidding, right?

He's spent his whole campaign painting the picture of "us versus them," "good versus bad," "honest versus corrupt." True, the evil boogeyman is Wall Street and the super-wealthy, but if you spend all your days building up that boogeyman and then allege even subtly that Clinton is a part of that, you don't have to actually connect the dots in order for your supporters too... It's still a shady attack meant to undermine her character. Except because he cleverly doesn't say it outright he gets to think of himself as taking the moral high road? Uh, that's not how it works.

And I think it is absolutely hilarious for a Sanders supporter to suddenly care about party unity. At this juncture, there is value in deflating the Bernie balloon. It'll show that Hillary doesn't sit and take it, is prepared to win the nomination with force, and will bring that same vigor to the general election campaign. You talk about party unity, but perhaps there are enough soft Sanders supporters who would be more easily drawn to the Clinton camp by her arguments against Sanders than if the primary went on for months and months with her not hitting back and these supporters getting further indoctrinated into the Cult of the Bern. Bring the guy down to earth and maybe a few of his less entrenched supporters will see reason too. Clearly he will make no effort to unite the party when loses, so Hillary has to force the unity on her own. Good for her.
80  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton: ďI Feel Sorry For Young People Who Believe SandersĒ on: April 04, 2016, 04:30:37 pm
It must be boring to constantly have to refer to "FREE STUFF" like some sort of nutty right-winger.  

You're right, it's not free at all. He will need to raise taxes for everyone.
But he conveniently forgets to mention that fact.

If you think US tax rates are too high, I want some of what you're smoking.

That's a nice straw-man you built there.

I'll ask it again, since you seem to want to respond to everything without actually adding anything substantive: why did Hillary Clinton stop taking donations from private prisons if the donations don't influence her political decision making?

This makes no sense.

If she decided to stop taking the donations because they were influencing her decisions, it means she's reflective enough to understand when she's being bought and takes the appropriate actions to neutralize this problem. Great! Since she apparently has good judgement on these matters, I trust that she has used the same criteria to determine that her Wall Street donors are, in fact, not actually influencing her! Yay!

On the other hand, it could have nothing to do with buying influence at all and simply be that she rejected the money because people were making too big a stink about it and she didn't want to deal with the drama, even though in reality it's a non-issue. She doesn't do the same with Wall Street because unfortunately she does need the money. The good thing is, she's shown that she doesn't let this money influence her and actually uses it to help support other Democrats.

So what's the problem?
81  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Do you think that Hillary Clinton is a generally honest person? on: April 04, 2016, 12:42:04 pm
No. I think she's honest about 10% of the time, as opposed to the politician average of 20%. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is honest about 95% of the time.

Lol
82  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Alternative Elections / Re: If Obama were running for a third term right now... on: April 04, 2016, 05:51:46 am
He'd be susceptible to almost all the same attacks Hillary is susceptible to from the Bernie folks (and then some!), except none of the attacks would actually be made.
83  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of cultural appropration? on: April 04, 2016, 04:58:41 am
I think it's a good and, most importantly, completely natural, thing (not a SJW cuck).

I make an exception for white people with dreadlocks. They should all be shot.

Adopting snowshoes is different from a mindless hipster parading around in a Tlingit family's extremely meaningful Chilkat dance apron. Sh-t like this actually happens.

I'm not saying cultures can't be dynamic and rub off on each other, but in some cases we're talking about the literal theft of sacred property. I hope you don't actually think that's a good thing.
84  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gov. Deal vetoes religious liberty bill on: April 04, 2016, 04:46:06 am
Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

The irony of this statement even tickles me and I'm a conservative.

Do you not realize it really was religious freedom protections(backed by the grassroots) vs big business (who want special rights for the lgbt).

"Special rights?" F-ck off, you are literally the worst.

It's a special right to ask for assurances that I will not be shamed at and turned away from a restaurant? The only "special right" I see in this situation is the right we'd be giving lunatic bigots to treat a particular group of people like garbage.

It only seems like a special right to you because you are used to moving through society with your privilege unimpeded. How horrible and unfair that you are forced to tolerate the presence and legitimacy of people who are different! Poor little put-upon JCL! Cry

Hagrid,

Do I want some guy who likes to play dress up as a girl (which is what many "transgendered individuals" are) going into a girls restroom where they could harass my soon to be wife or my future kids? I don't think so.

If I were a business owner I'd still treat my patrons with respect regardless. However I won't be forced to violate my closely held religious beliefs to do so. You are aware I'd rather that government stay out of marriage. Are you aware that many of the "rainbow coalition" are using the force of government for the purpose of revenge rather than gaining actual equity. That is something you can't deny. There has been deliberate targeting of businesses ran by and owned by people of faith and conscience by the gay community for destruction if they don't make nice and do business (and violate said religious conscious by aiding in a gay wedding) these religious freedom bills are trying to ensure by statute the first amendment religious liberties so enjoyed since the beginning of the American experiment. In your nation (Canada if your actually a native of BC) people of faith are targeted for jail for even preaching in support of traditional marriage.


Your closely-held religious beliefs are wrong. It's about time civilized societies stop tip-toeing around that and call your doctrine what it is.

Even so, we'll make nice and let you believe what you want. But as soon as those beliefs cross into the territory of permitting discrimination based on traits individuals can't control, that's where your freedom ends. You do not have the freedom to encroach on another person's right to enjoy equal access to society. Period. It's not "revenge" to ask that I be treated like every other customer... you simply don't and can't understand what it feels like to be legitimately discriminated against. I know, because everything changed for me when I came outóand it was a real eye-opener. If you were in the position of belonging to a discriminated against group, you would understand why it's not absurd to want every business shut down that would treat me like a second-class citizen.

And don't get me started about what you think you believe happens in "my nation." I have a bridge to sell you if you think I could get my Aunt Kathy thrown in jail. I almost wish it were so, but it's not.
85  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of cultural appropration? on: April 04, 2016, 04:29:13 am
The focus of my graduate studies has basically shifted to museum education and the politics of Indigenous cultures on display. Settler-colonialism in Canada continues to debase Aboriginal traditions, knowledge, and epistemologies... I don't see how stealing the visual elements of these folks' cultures and completely ripping them from their spiritual contexts is any different.

My opinion is negative.
86  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton: ďI Feel Sorry For Young People Who Believe SandersĒ on: April 04, 2016, 04:22:27 am
If anything, that clip just breathes life into the idea that she's constantly having to face manufactured bullsh-t about her record. "Answer this baseless criticism!" "Now reply to this one!"
87  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats are flawlessly executing a 10 point plan to lose the election on: April 04, 2016, 04:01:59 am
Jesus Christ, Bernieacs are such f[inks]ing whiny little babies. Democrats don't want him to be our nominee. You can vomit out a thousand poorly-written ten-point manifestos about how great this guy who has tricked you into donating your life-savings is, but it's not going to change the fact that Democrats don't want him to be our nominee.

Maybe go do something productive with your lives, instead of waiting for Bernie Sanders to ride in on his magical unicorn, waive a magic wand, and shower you with free shit.

Why don't you take your ass back to the GOP where it belongs along with your girl killery?

Seeing a left-winger use a right-wing name for Hillary is cringeworthy.


i'm using it from the perspective of being anti-war.

"Anti-war" is one of the sillier adjectives around. I mean, I'm anti-war too. George W. Bush is anti-war. War sucks. But sometimes it's necessary.

See? Useless adjective. And if you're against all wars on principle, then you're a dope.
88  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Seriously democrats, this is getting out of hand. on: April 04, 2016, 03:22:38 am
There's only a handful of bitter people on this forum, so your message is a bit in vain if directed at us.

It's important to remember that a lot of people don't follow politics as closely as we do, and even among some of the most enthusiastic primary supporters in the country right now, the vast majority don't understand political geography like a lot of us do. When you combine that lack of awareness with the exponential increase in "opinion" (s[inks]tty blog posts) available on the web today, just about anyone can find plenty of material with which to delude themselves into thinking that this primary is still competitive.

With that being said, this primary isn't anywhere nearly as nasty as 2008. The primary difference is that social media is now about 100x more potent than it was then and it is amplifying everything. Twitter was just starting to gain traction in 2008. YouTube was seeing its first presidential cycle. And on and on and on...the only potential worry is how social media - already contributing almost exclusively to the rapid spread of disinformation and BS opinion - will prevent those primary wounds from healing like they have in all past election cycles.

Just wait until June and see what happens. At that point, the disinformation-fueled will have no more primaries on which to cling for hope; I suppose they could try to cling to the "superdelegates flipping" argument if Sanders' deficit < Clinton's # of superdelegates, but I'm really going to give (most of) them the benefit of the doubt that they're not that nutty.  

Your points on the nastiness of 2008 and the potency of social media today are well-taken, but I wonder if you're actually skirting around an interesting dynamic.

While it's true that both campaigns were slinging really terrible personal insults at each other in 2008, it was perhaps less grating/infuriating for the supporters of each candidate because these people weren't exposed to it from all sides at all times. Today, the candidates are remaining a bit more civil than they were in 2008 (although to be frank I think anyone who can't see that Bernie is resorting to unfair character assassinations is fooling themselves), but the supporters are getting out of hand. In other words, they are the arbiters of the real nastiness on social media, and it's almost impossible to avoid. Add to the mix the fact that one camp's supporters are mainly young and tech-savvy, and it's no surprise that the other side is feeling victimized. I'd say they're right to feel that way, too, because it's basically been the reality for anyone who's stood with this person for the last 25 years.

In the end, it's true that the desperate losing candidate isn't being horrible. But he's certainly fueling the fire, and it's doing damage. It's especially bad because this candidate honestly has already lost the nomination, which makes it a bit unbelievable to see how much he's still digging his feet in. In 2008 Hillary started to lay off when it became clear that the writing was on the wall.

Seeing how things have developed... well, I'd argue that we've got a sore loser situation going on here. That, or the guy is just delusional.
89  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: When was the first time you've heard of... on: April 03, 2016, 07:57:28 pm
George W. Bush
- I remember playing outside at recess one day in the fall and some people were talking about their parents watching the election and it being a huge deal because it was so close. I didn't even know it was going on. I think we were having the conversation because my friend was American (moved to Mississauga from somewhere in Wisconsin, if I recall correctly). I remember hearing the name bush and laughing that someone was named after a shrub. I guess it would have been November 2000 when I was an eight-year-old in grade three.

Al Gore
- For some time, my dad has been on the executive board of the IAFF in Mississauga. The family planned a vacation around the 2004 IAFF general convention in Boston that summer. They had a huge rally for John Kerry and everyone got the yellow "Fire Fighters for John Kerry" shirts. I thought it was pretty cool and later found out a bit more about some of the other candidates the IAFF had supported. My dad showed me a Gore-Lieberman button he had in his filing cabinet. Maybe I'm mixing things up... certainly I would have known who he was in 2006 after An Inconvenient Truth.

Barack Obama
- I got Facebook around the same time everybody else seemed to, in the early months of 2007. There was some kind of candidate-matcher quiz, or perhaps it was just some kind of app that let you display who you supported. I saw the black guy running for president and thought it was pretty cool. Later I actually watched the debates and realized pretty quickly that the hype was for nothing.

Bernie Sanders
- Around the time I started closely following American politics (fall of 2007) I remember coming across clips of Bernie testifying about public healthcare. It spread pretty quickly among a few of my friends, because our Canadian system is pretty well entangled with our national identity. He seemed cool.

Mitt Romney
- I remember the coverage of his big speech on Mormonism during the 2008 campaign. It seemed like he had a pretty level head and knew what he was talking about. He became my "Republican choice" that year, even though I was firmly in the tank for Hillary (liking a Republican too much was sort of a waste of energy; the Democratic nominee was obviously going to win).

Rick Santorum
- 2012. Weirdo little guy at the debates.

Donald Trump
- I knew about him as soon as the Apprentice started. My family watched Survivor but I always had Beavers and Cubs that night. I would usually get home too late for Survivor but early enough to catch the beginning of Trump's show, even though I was never allowed to stay up for the whole thing.

Ted Cruz
- When he won his senate seat. At first I confused him on paper with Jeff Flake. Then Cruz started talking and I hated him immediately because his slipperiness was just so obvious.

Marco Rubio
- 2010. Cute guy.

Ben Carson
- The Prayer Breakfast. I thought it was great.

Joe Biden
- I guess I learned about him when I watched that first debate that convinced me to support Hillary.

Paul Ryan
- He seemed to gain prominence around 2010 with the Rise of the Tea Party. I noticed him then.
90  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie refuses to release tax returns, blames his wife on: April 03, 2016, 07:35:16 pm
Wow. Pretty frustrating when candidates are held to ridiculous standards, huh?

Welcome to the last 25 years of Hillary Clinton's life.
91  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: NY,PA,WI-CBS/YouGov: Sanders/Cruz in WI; Clinton/Trump in NY, Trump in PA on: April 03, 2016, 12:15:21 pm
I wonder if Sanders is sinking a bit. Could be that pointing out his dramatically negative tone is convincing some voters that he doesn't really care about the Democratic Party or actually making enough friends to implement his "revolution" come January.
92  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why hasn't Elizabeth Warren endorsed Bernie? on: April 03, 2016, 03:58:11 am
It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.

That's not the only reason why they don't back him

I'm sure. Roll Eyes

In the alternate reality where Bernie becomes the nominee, you'd better believe there'd be a Wall Street-backed superPAC behind him.
93  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why hasn't Elizabeth Warren endorsed Bernie? on: April 03, 2016, 02:05:39 am
It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.
94  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Hasnít Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? on: April 02, 2016, 08:34:58 pm
All I will say is that if Clinton supporters think Sanders is being negative right now, they need to brace themselves for the GE. Bernie's "attacks" on Clinton will seem like a cuddling session compared to the Benghazimail mud Republicans will sling at her.

Except Republicans don't have street cred with the progressive base. Sanders is literally telling lies about Clinton and pitting left-wing voters against her. It's a damn shame and not at all helpful.
95  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 04:13:02 pm
Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

Raising the revenues necessary to fund the programs you suggest requires the tax brackets and tax rates to at least remain similar to what they are now. Flattening everything would mean putting the burden on people who are less able to afford it, which would basically neutralize the effects of the training programs and tuition subsidies in the first place.

I suppose only applying a flat rate above a certain "subsistence" income of say, 20-30,000 dollars might be the solution to that.  I suppose the problem then would be increased taxes on the middle class; in that case, some pretty progressive taxation on capital gains and 10 million+ in income could be utilized.  Of course, spending could also be cut elsewhere in the budget to pay for more job-training and subsidized tuition; I'd probably look to entitlement reform to help recoup some costs.

So the solution involves a poor black single mother having to choose between job training for her kid or healthcare under Medicaid? Christ.
96  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 02:17:18 pm
Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

Raising the revenues necessary to fund the programs you suggest requires the tax brackets and tax rates to at least remain similar to what they are now. Flattening everything would mean putting the burden on people who are less able to afford it, which would basically neutralize the effects of the training programs and tuition subsidies in the first place.
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 02:11:05 pm
Are people on here seriously trying to say that the vast majority of rich people have gotten there through their own efforts and merits?

You gotta be kidding me.
70% of billionaires in this country are self-made. A majority of billionaires grew up in poor or middle-class circumstances.

"Self-made" does not always involve effort and merit. Good on them for capitalizing on the special opportunities they were given to work hard and rise out of their social milieu, but not everyone is afforded those same special opportunities. I would be curious to know the breakdown between "poor" and "middle-class" origins (and indeed the definitions of both) in the example you provide. There are people who start in life far worse than that, and if they find themselves in the double-jeopardy situation of also having dark skin or coming from a depressed neighbourhood, well... things are even harder.

North American social systems and institutions, from universities to hospitals, are sites of social performance, and in these playing fields what may look like getting ahead based on merit really involves invisible helping hands that privilege certain kinds of people. The odds that Laquisha Jackson makes it to college and then graduates into a stable job are a lot slimmer than the odds of William Fairchild from Bridgeport, Connecticut doing the same. One faces roadblocks every step of the way; the other has the gates held open for him throughout the whole journey. How many of those billionaires started off as black kids from Harlem?
98  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 01:54:00 pm
Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.
99  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 01:18:37 pm
Honestly, people deserve to keep the majority of the money they earn.  I really don't care if it's more beneficial to society to take more of rich people's money.  It's still their money, and frankly, many of them are superior to the losers who get women's studies degrees, smoke pot all day, and then whine about their minimum wage job.  Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals and to Democratic voting blocs, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.  Frankly, if you're intelligent and determined enough to become a petroleum engineer, actuary, or whatever and command a high income, then I happen to believe that you shouldn't pay more than 50% of your income to the government just because Uncle Sam thinks that it would be better to encourage "better social outcomes."  

And look, I understand that not everyone in poverty is in it because they deserved it, but penalizing rich people because of other people's choice to do drugs, not take their education seriously, etc. is flat-out wrong.

Aww. Someone who believes their success is based on "merit" and inherent superiority. That's cute. <3
100  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Krugman: Time for Sanders to start acting responsibly on: April 02, 2016, 12:52:31 pm
Sanders is running more than anything against a corrupt system. We don't live in a pure democracy, of course, where every issue is decided by referenda. Sanders is a human being and therefore he is going to make strategic mistakes, but his message is positive. He has a bold positive message for the future.

Clinton, to me at least, represents the old thinking of politics as usual which has failed us.

None of this has to be personal. I am glad that both of them have made the campaign about ideas, policies, the direction of the country. There are many things that Clinton supports that are good, like sensible gun control. It represents a campaign about visions for the future. Both candidates are likely to take us in a better direction in general than the Republican alternatives. There remains the concern about whether Clinton can add to and improve on things that Obama has done. My biggest concern is what kind of foreign policy we can expect from President Clinton.

What people fail to understand is that it's not "politics as usual." It's frankly just "politics." Obama was something new and radical and different. Someone who promised to bring change to the system. And look what happened. The system works the way it works for a reason, and it's not going to turn on its head just because a raving naive politician wills it to.

There's no indication whatsoever that Bernie offers anything that has any chance of actually changing the way things are done. You may say that we'll never know unless we try, but trying for something when there's an overwhelming risk of it becoming a devastating belly flop is irresponsible, and it speaks to the reasons why Bernie is drawing support from relatively secure white folks who can afford to take the risk. I mean, what I'm saying is pessimistic because it implies that there's never any sense in trying, but... there's not. The American political system was always intended to be a system that facilitated incremental changes, so the best choice is a politician who knows how to work within that system to get positive things done. Bernie has been in the system shouting about his brand of radical politics forever with very little to show for it. His becoming president is not going to magically change things, especially when his fiery base gets disillusioned and runs out of patience after the first 100 days of nothing seeming to change. If by some stretch of bad fortune he wins the presidency, it will frankly be the worst thing for the left that I could possibly dream up. He has raised the bar so impossibly high that he will be unable to score any kind of win at all. Surrounded by the context of government and not high-flying speeches or 10,000-person crowds, he will be like a balloon that keeps spewing air from its blowhole in a slow leak. Flailing and desperate, he will be cast aside almost at once. Good luck Democrats.

Of course, Bernie doesn't actually care about that. He's convinced that his fantasy is bulletproof.

Obama's idea of "changing politics as usual" was MUCH different than Sanders'.

Obama's moronically naive idea was that he would be "post-partisan" and compromise with wolvish Republicans in a system that is, despite his hopes, fundamentally zero-sum.

The "compromises" he got were cuts to social security and extensions on tax cuts for the rich.

He still channelled people's thirst for change into a movement that was going nowhere. That's no different than what Sanders is doing. You have to follow the rules to change the rules. Instead, he's inciting an angry mob that will help him break down the front door of government. Fine. Maybe he'll make it inside, but then the mob is going to disperse and he'll have no friends to help him with his quest.

He has done nothing to help build a friendly Congress, has shown no loyalty to the party he's using to make his pet project a reality (I use the word "reality" lightly), and is only going to create more frustration if he somehow manages to win, because he has exerted no effort thinking about how to actually translate his dreams into real change. If he had thought about it, he almost certainly would have re-evaluated his dreams to bring them down closer to earth (see his plan for free college that relies on the charity of Republican governors... ha!). So as it stands, the whole thing is one big con. And after 2008, I would think people would be a bit wiser to it. Instead they're just digging their heads further into the sand.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 261


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines