Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 27, 2017, 09:36:49 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

 61 
 on: Today at 08:41:12 pm 
Started by AMA IL TUO PRESIDENTE! - Last post by Non Swing Voter
Hopefully the socialist movement will be dead and Democrats will return to a capitalist mindset, but the country is getting more liberal on social issues so no.

Is this supposed to be a sentence?



I realize you're only 20, but yes.

A complete lack of insight. Easy to trigger as well.

And zero tolerance for 20 year old know it alls.

Good lord! you still don't see how incoherent that statement was?

I'm sorry, I'm not a brilliant scholar like you.  Forgive me.  Oh please forgive me.  I really could only dream of getting your stamp of approval given your achievements.  

You probably do know what you did wrong, but just in case you are that dense here are your mistakes:

Exhibit A. The definition of socialism:

1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a:  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b:  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

An educated person like yourself must surely know what the accurate definition of socialism actually is right? I it a mystery as to why you would use it incorrectly then and these are the possibilities I came up with.

1. You are an intellectual fraud who only knows the meaning of socialism from fox news.
2. you do know the definition of socialism but would rather dog-whistle than have an honest discussion.

Exhibit B: Social Liberalism = Socialism

This is not even an association fallacy. You simply lay down "socialism" (whatever you think that means) as the equivalent of contemporary social liberal issues like abortion and expect us to swallow it.



Again, this would have been a nothing burger had you just owned up to your mistake in the first place. Smiley













are you this ridiculously dense?  what are they teaching in colleges nowadays?  

I am against socialism as the term is commonly used in American politics to refer to shared societal economic responsibilities... e.g., socialized medicine.  On the other hand I am supportive of liberal social issues such as gun control and gay marriage.  I fear for the next generation given what I see here.

Ah, it's just too much... um no.  As I point out above, I was responding regarding "progressive" politics...  A clear read of my response was that I hope socialism is dead but I do not think progressivism is dead as it is getting more progressive on social issues...  JFC, you've made arguments regarding something you are flat out wrong about in multiple threads...

To spell it out further:

QUESTION I WAS RESPONDING TO: After 2020 will the progressive movement be dead?

ANSWER: Hopefully the socialist movement will be dead and Democrats will return to a capitalist mindset, but the country is getting more liberal on social issues so no.

I was saying that hopefully the socialist movement will die out... but the country is getting more liberal on social issues so no (the progressive movement will not be dead after 2020).

 62 
 on: Today at 08:40:36 pm 
Started by Blue3 - Last post by True Federalist
The loopholes were also massive in Eisenhower's time... even with an official tax rate of 90%, most billionaires would pay less than 30%.

Agreed.

People often complain about how the tax code favours special interests and how we should go back to 1940's-70's tax codes. They are completely unaware that the tax code was even more loophole ridden than it was then. To take a Canadian example, capital gains weren't taxed at all until 1972.
Incidentally, it was to allow capital gains to be taxed just like wage income that the 16th amendment was passed. Maximum capital gains tax rates were only slightly more during the World War II/Eisenhower era than now. (But nowhere near as bad as during Wilson's World War I tax regime. 77%, the same as any other income.)

 63 
 on: Today at 08:40:22 pm 
Started by RR1997 - Last post by Rjjr77
Dad- Classic Republican, economic issues based, taxes and guns are his two big wedge issues.
Mom- liberal elitist, but she'd never admit it. Not a radical.

 64 
 on: Today at 08:40:15 pm 
Started by MAINEiac4434 - Last post by Chinggis
Speaking of strange town results, I was shocked when I found this...

Holland Township, Missaukee County, Michigan

2016 (125 votes): Trump 72%, Clinton 22%, Johnson 5%
2012 (105 votes): Obama 49%, Romney 48% (Obama won by a single vote!)
2008 (124 votes): Obama 49%, McCain 47% (Obama by three!)
2004 (126 votes): Kerry 50%, Bush 49% (Kerry by a single vote!)
2000 (115 votes): Bush 49%, Gore 48% (Bush by a single vote!)

So a few things stick out. First, Missaukee County has never voted for a Democrat for President- it's Dutch Reformed farm country in northern Michigan. So the existence of a swing town there is pretty shocking. I checked on City-Data and, yes, 28% claim Dutch ancestry- but also 22% German, 17% English, 8% American. No immigrants, no gays (reported), virtually all-white, the big industries are construction and forestry and healthcare. There is at least one active Dutch Reformed church in town. These are not Democratic demographics but the town was evenly divided for years!

Three questions really, then:

(1) How and why did this rural white working-class town in the middle of historically Republican, religious conservative farm country vote for any Democrat, ever? Kinda exaggerating but not by much, it's that much of an outlier.

(2) What's up with the remarkably consistent turnout and partisan loyalties? That kind of extended polarization is what you'd expect to see from racial voting but, again, the town is all white.

(3) Why did half the Democrats in town go full #MAGA in 2016? Obama got 51 votes in 2012; Clinton got 28 votes last year, with a much bigger turnout.

If anyone knows anything about this anomaly I'd love to hear it!

 65 
 on: Today at 08:39:26 pm 
Started by AMA IL TUO PRESIDENTE! - Last post by Non Swing Voter
Hopefully the socialist movement will be dead and Democrats will return to a capitalist mindset, but the country is getting more liberal on social issues so no.

Is this supposed to be a sentence?



I realize you're only 20, but yes.

A complete lack of insight. Easy to trigger as well.

And zero tolerance for 20 year old know it alls.

Good lord! you still don't see how incoherent that statement was?

I'm sorry, I'm not a brilliant scholar like you.  Forgive me.  Oh please forgive me.  I really could only dream of getting your stamp of approval given your achievements.  

You probably do know what you did wrong, but just in case you are that dense here are your mistakes:

Exhibit A. The definition of socialism:

1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a:  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b:  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

An educated person like yourself must surely know what the accurate definition of socialism actually is right? I it a mystery as to why you would use it incorrectly then and these are the possibilities I came up with.

1. You are an intellectual fraud who only knows the meaning of socialism from fox news.
2. you do know the definition of socialism but would rather dog-whistle than have an honest discussion.

Exhibit B: Social Liberalism = Socialism

This is not even an association fallacy. You simply lay down "socialism" (whatever you think that means) as the equivalent of contemporary social liberal issues like abortion and expect us to swallow it.



Again, this would have been a nothing burger had you just owned up to your mistake in the first place. Smiley













You do realize the original question that I was answering was related to whether or not progressivism is dead... right?  do you see how in that context one could say they hope one aspect of it (socialism) is dead but that it is probably not dead overall because the country is getting more liberal on social issues...?  Since you referenced sentence structure, that what's the comma was for, to break up those two distinct points... 

 66 
 on: Today at 08:39:25 pm 
Started by bronz4141 - Last post by ajc0918
Any idea how independent voters will split? I don't think I have  seen any polling results by affiliation

 67 
 on: Today at 08:39:12 pm 
Started by homelycooking - Last post by President dfwlibertylover
Actually, I was just doing it because I learned I couldn't run in both the Senate and House primaries. JTC, if it means that much to you, perhaps you should run.
I thought you could - you could only take one seat though (ie. if you're elected to both, you choose which one you want).
yeah iirc Siren ran for House and Senate at the same time once

 68 
 on: Today at 08:39:06 pm 
Started by Nichlemn - Last post by Figueira
The 50 state governments and France (the two places mentioned by OP) are both examples of unitary governments, whereas an electoral college makes sense in a federal system.

In fact, very few democratic countries elect their chief executives directly.  The UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, India all use parliamentary systems which, I would argue, is far more of an affront to democracy than the electoral college.
Care to explain why you think that?

Voters do not directly vote for their chief executive.  They vote for an MP who then votes for a Prime Minister in parliament.  The electoral college is a more direct election process, and it at least allows voters to illustrate a preference for a split legislative/executive branch.

What is someone to do if they love their local MP but hate that party's leader/candidate for PM?  or vice-versa? 

Same thing you do if you love Gregg Harper (or whoever, I don't know where in MS you are) but hate Paul Ryan?

Also your critique applies to the UK and India. It doesn't really apply to Germany, Sweden, or Japam.

 69 
 on: Today at 08:38:33 pm 
Started by (Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31 - Last post by Ebowed
Assuming you aren't a paid troll, you would be most welcome at Stormfront or whatever neo-nazi website is doing well these days.  Actually, you'd probably be welcome either way.

Progressives like you are so accepting and tolerant.  You really make the world a better place.  So glad I'm pitching in with your health insurance.

You don't.

Even if you did, you'd still be totally out of line by bringing this into an unrelated thread.

Enjoy your wealth - it seems like the only thing that you have going for you.  Peace.

 70 
 on: Today at 08:37:57 pm 
Started by Scarlet Drift - Last post by Delegate JustinTimeCuber
some people are still triggered massively by LGBT people

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines