| And now everything comes full circle... https://vid.me/4wZ5 |
 |
So the Youtuber The Amazing Atheist, a guy who's critical of Trump and Hillary, posted this picture on Twitter. *Sigh* Sooner or later, they're gonna get a big slap on the face with reality. Let's give people more reason why Trump won. |
 |
#OurFenceIsTaller But really? That is the second picture of Israel's wall you have posted, what is your obsession with Zionism? http://www.snopes.com/mexico-guatemala-border/ Here is a real picture of Mexico-Guatemala border:  Thrashinuva said: You literally don't understand what Socialism is. Just going to throw that out there since the desire of big business and the desires of socialism are quite literally polar opposites.Roloko said: I'm just going to sit back and watch the trainwreck unfold before me. My Dad was in working class as a laborer and the entire term of Obama's presidency we had no jobs and we were poor and starving so yeah kinda glad in a way Trump won instead of Hillary. But still If only Bernie were here... Bernie is a socialist. The policies that rich would have paid Hillary to make, Bernie would have done voluntarily. |
Pirating_NinjaNov 12, 2016 6:32 PM
 |
papsoshea said: I would agree except for a few things here . . . for everyone that says "not my president." it’s time to grow up, and start acting like the money your parents spent on your education was worth it. you have the right to disagree with trump but you sure don't have the right to push your anarchy rhetoric. look, obama proved you can live without a president for 8 years. at the very least, give trump 4 years. if you don't come to like what his administration does after that, vote him out. but when you bring to the table the same thing hillary has for 30+ years (hate, lies, and corruption) You only justify america’s vote for trump. crazy loony liberals! 1) More people voted for Trump, don't pretend Trump is supported by the majority. 2) Obama was a far better president than Bush, Bush was quite literally a puppet who served his purpose after his advisors got their vengeance on Hussein that his daddy didn't want to finish years prior. 3) Trump primed the public to contest the results with his fucking "I won't accept it unless I win", you would think people wouldn't be retarded hypocrites, but you also knew they were. |
|
papsoshea said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012haha man i can't take you serious after all the shit you wrote turned out to be wrong when trump won. i know there stuff in the past about talking about majority vote but i remember clearly when mitt romney loss but had majority vote them crazy dem's were saying it doesn't mean shit. and obama is the definition of a puppet, george soro's had him on strings. What the fuck are you talking about? Obama didn't lose the popular vote . . . Either election. In fact, it is relatively rare for a president to win but lose the Popular Vote, with only 6 exceptions, and 2 of them (Bush and Trump) being back-to-back in their party is a first. They are the only examples of this phenomenon for roughly 100 years. however have no fear, I find it hard to take you seriously when you are remembering things that never happened. Also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where_winner_lost_popular_vote |
|
Thrashinuva said: Roloko said: I'm just going to sit back and watch the trainwreck unfold before me. My Dad was in working class as a laborer and the entire term of Obama's presidency we had no jobs and we were poor and starving so yeah kinda glad in a way Trump won instead of Hillary. But still If only Bernie were here... Bernie is a socialist. The policies that rich would have paid Hillary to make, Bernie would have done voluntarily. Bernie would have won easily if he ran against Trump, which is why it's such a good thing that Hillary conned him, because he would have ruined the country just the same. He's a Social Democrat actually which is totally different from Socialism. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| Hatred: USA Election mode And I am so glad that tumblr talks about the truly most important things that no one else is brave enough to talk about |
Pirating_Ninja said: Thrashinuva said: #OurFenceIsTallerLol I just found out about this. http://static.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fence2.jpg http://immigrationtounitedstates.org/uploads/posts/2011-07/1310026978_border-fence.jpg But really? That is the second picture of Israel's wall you have posted, what is your obsession with Zionism? http://www.snopes.com/mexico-guatemala-border/ Here is a real picture of Mexico-Guatemala border: http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o127/cinnamons81/mexguate.jpg Damn dude late you responded to my later posts before that one. I never particularly researched either Israel's border or Mexico's border, and labelling me "zionist" is pretty far fetched and baseless. I've seen that term lately and I had to look up what it even meant just now. Pirating_Ninja said: Thrashinuva said: You literally don't understand what Socialism is. Just going to throw that out there since the desire of big business and the desires of socialism are quite literally polar opposites.Bernie is a socialist. The policies that rich would have paid Hillary to make, Bernie would have done voluntarily. traed said: Thrashinuva said: Bernie is a socialist. The policies that rich would have paid Hillary to make, Bernie would have done voluntarily. Bernie would have won easily if he ran against Trump, which is why it's such a good thing that Hillary conned him, because he would have ruined the country just the same. He's a Social Democrat actually which is totally different from Socialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders "While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League (the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_sit-ins "1962" ... "CORE activist Bernie Sanders led a rally at the University of Chicago" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America "In its 1972 Convention"..."The Party changed its name to Social Democrats, USA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders Bernie has literally never ran, according to this history, under the democratic party until this election, and he still didn't even run as a democrat himself. The Socialist Democrat Party sought to transform the democrat party into a more socialist variation of itself, and yet Bernie still never ran as a Democrat even after that movement. He's literally a socialist. You can say I don't know what socialism is, but that hardly means anything when he's a socialist regardless of what I know about socialism. |
| @Thrashinuva It's not Socialist in the Marxist sense or at least not what his policy was. If it was he would be a Democratic Socialist not a Social Democrat. He never claimed to want thee means of production to be owned by the workers or collective. Real socialism is actually better because instead of moving money from rich to poor you just have people collect full reward of their work as they agree to under their own management so the rich never get rich unfairly by the work of others to begin with. They can only become rich through their own work output. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
traed said: Real socialism is actually better You are American, right? |
Thrashinuva said: Very well, I will spell out why you either don't know what socialism is, or are being intentionally stupid. First let me provide the basic definition of socialism (I won't bother arguing whether or not Bernie is socialist as this is irrelevant to your claim that the rich backing Hilary Clinton want the "socialism" that Bernie Sanders is espousing)Bernie is a socialist. The policies that rich would have paid Hillary to make, Bernie would have done voluntarily. so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Under socialism, resources are distributed equally amongst the community as a whole, and while Bernie was not arguing for pure socialism, any "socialist steps" will be in a step towards this direction. Billionaires, corporate owners, etc., are adamantly opposed as this would mean that their company, their fortune, their hard work, is something to be distributed out to the public at large (through government supervision of course, typically in a socialist regime their are not private corporations but rather the government runs everything which you as a taxpaying citizen own a stake in, which would be the case in a pure socialist government but you really just get a mish-mash of socialist / capitalist, like America typically.) So when Bernie starts saying socialist things like "free college, and the rich will pay for it", you can bet your ass that the rich don't want to start distributing their wealth in such a manner. To say that Bernie Sanders, who you deem a socialist, is doing the bidding of the rich shows a blatant lack of knowledge in what socialism is since socialism is in and of itself something that the rich are directly opposed to as they are the ones who stand the most to lose. |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Thrashinuva said: Very well, I will spell out why you either don't know what socialism is, or are being intentionally stupid. First let me provide the basic definition of socialism (I won't bother arguing whether or not Bernie is socialist as this is irrelevant to your claim that the rich backing Hilary Clinton want the "socialism" that Bernie Sanders is espousing)Bernie is a socialist. The policies that rich would have paid Hillary to make, Bernie would have done voluntarily. so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Under socialism, resources are distributed equally amongst the community as a whole, and while Bernie was not arguing for pure socialism, any "socialist steps" will be in a step towards this direction. Billionaires, corporate owners, etc., are adamantly opposed as this would mean that their company, their fortune, their hard work, is something to be distributed out to the public at large (through government supervision of course, typically in a socialist regime their are not private corporations but rather the government runs everything which you as a taxpaying citizen own a stake in, which would be the case in a pure socialist government but you really just get a mish-mash of socialist / capitalist, like America typically.) So when Bernie starts saying socialist things like "free college, and the rich will pay for it", you can bet your ass that the rich don't want to start distributing their wealth in such a manner. To say that Bernie Sanders, who you deem a socialist, is doing the bidding of the rich shows a blatant lack of knowledge in what socialism is since socialism is in and of itself something that the rich are directly opposed to as they are the ones who stand the most to lose. And yet somehow while we were so busy disadvantaging the rich in the past 20 years, we managed to create tax loopholes allowing the rich to pay $0 on taxes. I'm also not just speaking of rich people that live within the United States. However you could be certain that businesses would love to create an environment where startups couldn't flourish anymore. Socialism is directly beneficial to businesses that already exist, and detrimental to businesses that do not yet exist, or are incredibly small in comparison. In a socialist environment the business that is on top needs not worry about competition, as the government ensures that there is none. It's a small price to pay, for some, to "spread the wealth" when your wealth is ensured. |
Yes, and your point? |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Thrashinuva said: . . . Pirating_Ninja said: Very well, I will spell out why you either don't know what socialism is, or are being intentionally stupid. First let me provide the basic definition of socialism (I won't bother arguing whether or not Bernie is socialist as this is irrelevant to your claim that the rich backing Hilary Clinton want the "socialism" that Bernie Sanders is espousing) Under socialism, resources are distributed equally amongst the community as a whole, and while Bernie was not arguing for pure socialism, any "socialist steps" will be in a step towards this direction. Billionaires, corporate owners, etc., are adamantly opposed as this would mean that their company, their fortune, their hard work, is something to be distributed out to the public at large (through government supervision of course, typically in a socialist regime their are not private corporations but rather the government runs everything which you as a taxpaying citizen own a stake in, which would be the case in a pure socialist government but you really just get a mish-mash of socialist / capitalist, like America typically.) So when Bernie starts saying socialist things like "free college, and the rich will pay for it", you can bet your ass that the rich don't want to start distributing their wealth in such a manner. To say that Bernie Sanders, who you deem a socialist, is doing the bidding of the rich shows a blatant lack of knowledge in what socialism is since socialism is in and of itself something that the rich are directly opposed to as they are the ones who stand the most to lose. And yet somehow while we were so busy disadvantaging the rich in the past 20 years, we managed to create tax loopholes allowing the rich to pay $0 on taxes. I'm also not just speaking of rich people that live within the United States. However you could be certain that businesses would love to create an environment where startups couldn't flourish anymore. Socialism is directly beneficial to businesses that already exist, and detrimental to businesses that do not yet exist, or are incredibly small in comparison. In a socialist environment the business that is on top needs not worry about competition, as the government ensures that there is none. It's a small price to pay, for some, to "spread the wealth" when your wealth is ensured. Okay so you definitely do not understand socialism, like not even slightly. For starters, the tax loopholes you are referring to were likely not "created" rather never closed (which shocker, the "rich" make sure to get people elected and then they don't close known loopholes, I wonder why). This has relatively nothing to do w/ socialism but is a testament to why Capitalism can go wrong when it is allowed entry into politics. Under socialism there is no private business, those people you refer to being at the top don't exist, they would have their companies taken from them and quite literally everything they owned would be redistributed under pure socialism. The fact you do not know what socialism is to the extent you see it as benefiting the rich is relatively frightening to say the least (not that it isn't an inherently flawed system). Read the definition again because the fact that you think their is a top means you didn't do so the first time. (on a side note, our current system would be considered "corporate socialism" in which taxes from the people are redistributed to corporations through things like subsidized oil drilling, because they need the government's support to sink Oklahoma into the Earth's crust) Pure socialism would mean their is no top whatsoever as each person gets an equal slice of the pie, no one person owns more, no one person owns less. It doesn't work but that is socialism. But I am getting bored of this, I probably won't respond. I really don't understand what is complicated about Socialism, we aren't even arguing the practicality or effectiveness of the system, but rather what it is. I'm at a loss since this is literally the first time I have ever seen someone think socialism is an economic practice that benefits big business. Pure capitalism benefits big business / monopolies. Socialism makes it so big business doesn't exist. |
Pirating_NinjaNov 12, 2016 9:26 PM
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Under socialism there is no private business, those people you refer to being at the top don't exist, they would have their companies taken from them and quite literally everything they owned would be redistributed under pure socialism. . You probably could have worded that better. They dont take all their money and homes or whatever just the corporate property. Ad you're describing revolutionary socialism. There are other ways to acheive the same thing. Socialism makes it so big business doesn't exist. I think they can exist but from how it works they are more efficient as small so they stay small usually by themselves. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
traed said: I am using extremes to try and drive the point home since he doesn't know what socialism is.Pirating_Ninja said: Under socialism there is no private business, those people you refer to being at the top don't exist, they would have their companies taken from them and quite literally everything they owned would be redistributed under pure socialism. . You probably could have worded that better. They dont take all their money and homes or whatever just the corporate property. Ad you're describing revolutionary socialism. There are other ways to acheive the same thing. Socialism makes it so big business doesn't exist. I think they can exist but from how it works they are more efficient as small so they stay small usually by themselves. Pure capitalism means absolutely no government interference in the market (so things like minimum wage or anti-trust laws don't exist), and this can even extend to things like privatized military, police, etc. Pure socialism means government is business, their is no private sector whatsoever. |
|
Neane93 said: Hatred: USA Election mode And I am so glad that tumblr talks about the truly most important things that no one else is brave enough to talk about No surprise for Tumblr although the first one omfg, that's just beyond fucked up though, it just makes me feel... uh, wow, rather too much to be fair. Aaaand this is why America is slowly falling down, because Trump hasn't done shit yet though, and it's not even January 20th ._. he can't do shit until January. |
Pirating_Ninja said: Pure socialism means government is business, their is no private sector whatsoever. How you say that sounds more like state capitalism. Socialism is all business is co-ops because private business is banned and doesn't necisarily have to have any other government control to be socialism still. SymphoniacTippy said: No surprise for Tumblr although the first one omfg, that's just beyond fucked up though, it just makes me feel... uh, wow, rather too much to be fair. Aaaand this is why America is slowly falling down, because Trump hasn't done shit yet though, and it's not even January 20th ._. he can't do shit until January. Some Tumblr blogs are satire or trolls though. You can't assume they're serious just because it's from Tumblr. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
traed said: Calling it "business owned by the people as a whole" would be saying the same thing as "owned by the government", since that is what the government is within Socialism.Pirating_Ninja said: Pure socialism means government is business, their is no private sector whatsoever. How you say that sounds more like state capitalism. Socialism is all business is co-ops because private business is banned and doesn't necisarily have to have any other government control to be socialism still. Think the problem here is that you are considering a practical version of socialism, rather than the ideological concept of socialism. Because Socialism is present within most nations, it is hard to simply create an argument in which I say something like "The US is 20%, Sanders is vying for 35%", rather than show the two extremes, assume we are somewhere between the two, and make note of what it means when you are pushing more towards one than the other. Think of social programs within the United States and how they operate: The Police, The Military, Public Schools, etc., the central theme here is that they are all funded by each and every taxpayer and thus (ideally) serve each and every taxpayer equally (although bear in mind schools and police are paid at the district / city or sometimes state level, rather than federal). 100% socialism would be if everything was run the same way. |
Pirating_NinjaNov 12, 2016 10:15 PM
|
Good to know that they value our democratic system. |
Pirating_Ninja said: Pure socialism means government is business, their is no private sector whatsoever. There is no government in most forms of socialism |
| It's funny how all these Hillary/anti-Trump supporters are showing their true colors. And then they have the gall to cal anyone supporting Trump racist, bigot, etc. The hypocrisy is very strong here. And it makes it even more interesting when the election results aren't even set in stone yet, given that the Electoral College will officially cast their vote on December 19th, and Trump only needs to lose 38 of the 306 Electorates he has now in order for Clinton to make a comeback, and the pressure on the EC is high. Not that I expect it to happen, given that it's never happened before, but gotta keep all options open, and there's a first time for everything. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| @Pirating_Ninja If I argued to you that the extremes you've provided are what Socialism is, you'd tell me that Socialism doesn't have to be extreme, just to prove a point. |
Sure....why not....let the U.S have a wall, fence, moat, whatever... BUT...will it actually solve anything? If the fucking Mediterranean sea which is many times more of a barrier than a goddamn wall, doesn't stop illegal immigrants in Europe....what chance do we have?! And the Billions of dollars it will cost will come out of OUR pockets! I mean Jesus....it's like debating children. |
JustALEX said: Thrashinuva said: Lol I just found out about this. http://static.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fence2.jpg BUT...will it actually solve anything? Yes. When you can't just simply walk in, then you actually have to take extra steps to get through. When people can't just simply run for it, security forces can move to arrest much more easily and survey the area much more easily. When they attempt to dig holes underground, even if they should succeed they can still no longer go through en masse, and must do so inconspicuously which will reduce the flow, and when the tunnel is found it can be closed or guarded easily. It certainly is like debating children. Many children would agree with all of this because they've played tower defense games. It's like you're arguing that a dam won't work because it'll rain. |
Thrashinuva said: Yes. When you can't just simply walk in, then you actually have to take extra steps to get through. When people can't just simply run for it, security forces can move to arrest much more easily and survey the area much more easily. When they attempt to dig holes underground, even if they should succeed, they can still no longer go through en masse, and must do so inconspicuously, which will reduce the flow, and when the tunnel is found it can be closed or guarded easily. It certainly is like debating children. Many children would agree with all of this, because they've played tower defense games. It's like you're arguing that a dam won't work because it'll rain. Ok....yeah, despite the fact that the U.S has already TRIED to make fences and shit and just that alone has been a logistical nightmare which has proven to be utterly fruitless. Yeah....let's go for the wall. It will certainly make the ladder industry quite rich....maybe the rope industry too. I wanna see the faces of people like YOU if and when we build this (We won't because it's fucking impossible)....only to realize it won't do anything. |
JustALEX said: Thrashinuva said: Yes. When you can't just simply walk in, then you actually have to take extra steps to get through. When people can't just simply run for it, security forces can move to arrest much more easily and survey the area much more easily. When they attempt to dig holes underground, even if they should succeed, they can still no longer go through en masse, and must do so inconspicuously, which will reduce the flow, and when the tunnel is found it can be closed or guarded easily. It certainly is like debating children. Many children would agree with all of this, because they've played tower defense games. It's like you're arguing that a dam won't work because it'll rain. Ok....yeah, despite the fact that the U.S has already TRIED to make fences and shit and just that alone has been a logistical nightmare which has proven to be utterly fruitless. Yeah....let's go for the wall. It will certainly make the ladder industry quite rich....maybe the rope industry too. I wanna see the faces of people like YOU if and when we build this (We won't because it's fucking impossible)....only to realize it won't do anything. And I guess you can't even look at a picture:  What do you see in this picture? While I'm talking about a wall and they have a fence, they have one thing that both should have.  Guard posts. And further the people in these posts would have radios and other tools, for which they can see and communicate clearly even at night. Furthermore if you put in stricter penalties for migrating illegally it will reduce their eagerness, which will alleviate the pressure on the guards. To me "logistical nightmare" doesn't mean "impossible", and if there's anyone we've put into power recently that I feel could make that happen, it's Trump. |
| So....I have to spell this out for you, don't I? The Mexico/Guatemala border is about 500 miles.... The U.S/Mexico border is 2,000 miles......covered it horrible terrain such as desert oh and you know that fucking river! Furthermore, that picture is NOT the border of Mexico and Guatemala. |
JustALEX said: Furthermore, that picture is NOT the border of Mexico and Guatemala. It's still an example of a border protected correctly. |
| There is no border wall along that border, though Mexico is seemingly intent on building one if the US does, as they don't want South Americans storming to them to reach the US, which they have, I think in a sign of appeasement to the US, they've been arresting and deporting Central Americans en-route to the US in droves. So far the only progress on their "wall" is a bit of Chain link fence, and barbed wire being strung in the rivers minus at crossing points. Funny enough if the US uses localized means in some sections, such as sandstone in place of concrete, or limestone, the wall would be much like the Great Wall of China, which was and will still be far larger than the US border fence, and the Chinese wall was built in far harsher landscape. Short of the money price tag, the wall its self would not be an amazing feat. |
Thrashinuva said: The point I am making is that you can never declare someone pro-socialism and at the same time acting in the interests of the "rich" as these two groups are directly opposed with one another, with one supporting policies that result in wealth distribution and the other supporting policies that will lead to "wealth hoarding" I'll call it (although don't like that since it sounds bad but it really isn't)@Pirating_Ninja If I argued to you that the extremes you've provided are what Socialism is, you'd tell me that Socialism doesn't have to be extreme, just to prove a point. The concept that Sanders was acting to benefit the rich though is an odd one when one looks at what he was vying for including relatively radical things like Free college and breaking apart the major banks. Not too mention he wanted to increase taxes on corporate gains (i.e. includes taxes on investments, which is where most of the really wealthy gain their money, not through income). The only reason why I bring this up is because he wasn't actually vying for pure socialism, but since you were making the claim Sanders = Socialism = What the rich wants, I chose to address the latter two parts. |
|
Pirating_Ninja said: Thrashinuva said: The point I am making is that you can never declare someone pro-socialism and at the same time acting in the interests of the "rich" as these two groups are directly opposed with one another, with one supporting policies that result in wealth distribution and the other supporting policies that will lead to "wealth hoarding" I'll call it (although don't like that since it sounds bad but it really isn't)@Pirating_Ninja If I argued to you that the extremes you've provided are what Socialism is, you'd tell me that Socialism doesn't have to be extreme, just to prove a point. The concept that Sanders was acting to benefit the rich though is an odd one when one looks at what he was vying for including relatively radical things like Free college and breaking apart the major banks. Not too mention he wanted to increase taxes on corporate gains (i.e. includes taxes on investments, which is where most of the really wealthy gain their money, not through income). The only reason why I bring this up is because he wasn't actually vying for pure socialism, but since you were making the claim Sanders = Socialism = What the rich wants, I chose to address the latter two parts. Sanders wouldn't have acted to benefit the rich. He would have acted to what he felt was right, which would have benefitted certain rich people and businesses. If he had something as ill hearted as manipulating the law to benefit the entitled, then it wouldn't make sense to not take bribes along the way. |
Thrashinuva said: Either way, the point is that if you move in the direction of socialism (which for the sake of argument, you declared Sanders as being) you will inadvertently hurt the interests of the rich. Especially if you start talking about things like fracturing the banks (which limits investing power, exponentially limiting opportunities for the rich) or increasing taxes on investments (One major reason why you notice the 1%, and especially once you go past that w/ the .1% or .01%, start to make less and less of their wealth from income and more and more from investments which has a flat tax of 10%, as opposed to the highest tax bracket on income which is something like 39.6%). The rich don't make their money from income, hence why saying that you will increase income taxes on the rich does not equate to being anti-rich, whereas when you start limiting the power of investments, you start seriously putting a dent in the rich. I will note that this isn't necessarily a good thing, just why Sander's proposals could not benefit the rich as they operate by and large to take large chunks of the rich's money to fund newly proposed government-run social programs which would not benefit the rich as they would by and large not use it, and even if they did, they are a single person and could only take out as much as a person living in a shack, they would be putting in a disproportionately larger chunk into a program they could only take as much out of as the next guy if they don't put qualifiers on the program such as they do with programs like welfare - in which case they couldn't take out anything despite the program by and large being funded by them. Hence why the "rich" do not like socialism as it centers around concepts that redistribute their wealth to the lower classes without any immediate gain to them. Pirating_Ninja said: The point I am making is that you can never declare someone pro-socialism and at the same time acting in the interests of the "rich" as these two groups are directly opposed with one another, with one supporting policies that result in wealth distribution and the other supporting policies that will lead to "wealth hoarding" I'll call it (although don't like that since it sounds bad but it really isn't) The concept that Sanders was acting to benefit the rich though is an odd one when one looks at what he was vying for including relatively radical things like Free college and breaking apart the major banks. Not too mention he wanted to increase taxes on corporate gains (i.e. includes taxes on investments, which is where most of the really wealthy gain their money, not through income). The only reason why I bring this up is because he wasn't actually vying for pure socialism, but since you were making the claim Sanders = Socialism = What the rich wants, I chose to address the latter two parts. Sanders wouldn't have acted to benefit the rich. He would have acted to what he felt was right, which would have benefitted certain rich people and businesses. If he had something as ill hearted as manipulating the law to benefit the entitled, then it wouldn't make sense to not take bribes along the way. Of course their are arguments that the gains would come back to the "rich" through increased in things like purchasing power among the lower classes, but whether or not that is true has yet to be seen (and I personally think it is true only up to a point). |
Pirating_NinjaNov 13, 2016 10:18 AM
|
 This white hose had so much internalized misogyny and xenophobia, it is totally asking for it. #LoveTrumpsHate. Oh and some totally unimportant girl is gonna move to one of the most debt-stricken and hopeless nations in Europe now that Trump won.  |
removed-userNov 13, 2016 9:39 PM
| Defcon went back to 5 after Trump victory. We're at the safest threat level possible right now. We were pushed up to Defcon 3 during the election. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/732135/donald-trump-election-defcon-reduced-level-5-safest-level At least that's what we have to go by. |
| JonTron said something about the reaction to the election that led to a massive amount of bitching at him. |
Neane93 said: JonTron said something about the reaction to the election that led to a massive amount of bitching at him. Wtf I never cared much about him but I have to go send him some love. |
| Apparently Trump should take his full salary and we should like it. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-salary-george-washington-214458 |
It's a good thing Hillary didn't win:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3944234/Hillary-hiding-Clinton-says-wasn-t-easiest-thing-children-s-gala-disappointing-defeat-considered-never-leaving-house-again.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus She ain't lookin so good. |
Thrashinuva said: It's a good thing Hillary didn't win: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3944234/Hillary-hiding-Clinton-says-wasn-t-easiest-thing-children-s-gala-disappointing-defeat-considered-never-leaving-house-again.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus She ain't lookin so good. She looks like Emperor Palpatine. Was that the look she was going for? |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I guess this shouldn't surprise me. I live in Ohio and everyone I know voted for Trump. Voting for him meant you're part of the family. The only progressive I know voted for Jill Stein. This election has been so weird…to have the Democrats be represented by a dynastic establishment candidate and the Republicans to have the anti-establishment one. Really goes to show how angry America has gotten…the increasing income disparity and distrust in our federal government. It's been hard not to lose hope. |
| On a humorous side-note it appears that Pence will be a huge competitor to Ben "The One Man Klan" Garrison in terms of colorful nicknames thus ensuring that this presidency will continue to be the most memeist of presidencies On a sad note a 15 year old wearing a MAGA cap was brutally jumped and beaten by anti-Trump supporters sporting Love Trumps Hate signs. http://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2016/11/trump-supporter-15-beaten-during-rockville-protest/slide/1/ Truly we live in an enlightened age where peace and tolerance are practiced by people who say "Love Trumps hate". |
removed-userNov 17, 2016 11:41 AM
This image sums up how the mal threads/internet is here lately.  Kek be praised? |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |