GBAtemp Debate Club: Presidential Candidates
- Thread starter TotalInsanity4
- Start date
- Views 9,729
- Replies 128
- Likes 2
- Status
My most recent ideology results: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1004942928
Despite aligning 99% with Bernie Sanders and 92% with Hillary Clinton, I acknowledge that Bernie Sanders has no chance in the Democratic primary nor the general election. I like them both, but Hillary Clinton has my full support.
Meh, vote in primaries. If I were in your situation I'd say vote for Bernie in primaries and if he doesn't make it to nomination, then fall back on Hillary
I do vote in primaries, but Bernie isn't going to win regardless of how I vote in the primary. Hillary is and will continue to be too far ahead.
In addition, I will be voting for Hillary in the primary because she has a better chance at winning the general election. The few differences between Hillary and Bernie are not worth taking a chance with Bernie in the general election.
Fair enough
Also added one more resource, it's a comparison between Democratic and Republican ideals
You have not refuted the fact that the top 5% pays 60% in taxes, which is far more than their "fair share" by any stretch of the imagination.
Let's look at the larger issue. Taxation is theft. The government holding a gun to your head demanding your wallet is no different than a thug on the street doing so.
Once again,
Why not admit you were wrong?Smuff said:
Leftist/liberal policies do keep people poor,
What you subsidize increases, what you tax diminishes. Socialism is a system which punishes success and rewards failure, you can't change the facts, no matter how much they hurt your feelings :^).[/QUOTE]
Assuming for simplicity that your numbers are correct or close to correct, I've already explained how that's the only fair way to do things. Of course tax dollars from millionaires and billionaires are going to overwhelm that tax dollars from lower earners.
It's not theft when you are not forced to live here. We come together, advocate for policy one way or another, and vote for politicians who help decide tax policy. If you don't like the result, you are free to leave. You can also stay and continue to advocate for tax policy you want. Do not pretend you are being held up at gunpoint. You can leave if you don't want to contribute to society in the form of taxes. But if you're going to live in this society, you have societal obligations. That's the price of admission, and I really can't believe I'm having to explain the basics of taxation. If we allowed everyone to pick and choose what taxes they pay on an individual level, there would be no revenue for anything.
I think I already explained the main problems with this reasoning.
Nice cop out.
I'm glad we're in agreement the rich pay more than their fair share.
I did not sign a contract stating I will give 50% of my income to whatever politician is in power. If I don't pay my taxes, I will get a series of increasingly threatening letters, followed by a court date, if I don't show up, they will send men with guns to my house to take me to prison. If I resist, they will shoot me.
Nope. I have zero obligation if I have not signed a contract.
Your argument is "Well, the government takes your money and provides services in return!", if a thief demands your wallet, but assures you that he will spend the money for your benefit, would you voluntarily give it to him? Of course not. It's no different when the government does it.
Nice cop out x2. Socialism punishes success and rewards failure, that's an indisputable fact.
Banning guns has never been about stopping gangs and hardened criminals from getting guns. They will always get guns. It's about 1) suicides, 2) spur of the moment murders, and 3) accidental shootings.
1) Most suicides in the US are from firearms. Okay, I know, you may say well without guns people will just kill themselves some other way. You'd be surprised. 1 in 25 suicide attempts work. Many people attempt suicide in very stupid ways, I don't know if they are caught up in the moment, or can't bring themselves to legitimately risk their life or they're just dumb, but swallowing a bunch of assorted pills in the medicine cabinet will probably not kill them, considering how slow of a death that is and 21st century hospitals and whatnot. When someone shoots themselves with a gun, they are basically guaranteed to die. Getting rid of guns will dramatically increase the number of stupid suicide attempts, and reduce suicide.
2) Yes, gangs will always get guns, but murder sprees by homicidal maniacs and passion fueled murderers often just grab the gun they happen to own. It's one thing to see your wife cheating, grab the gun, and start firing. It's another thing to calmly walk to the gun store, wait a week for a background check, then show up to the guy's house later that Sunday.
3) 600 people accidentally shoot themselves every year in the U.S. That's a pretty small number. It almost isn't even worth considering. But you know what else isn't even worth considering? The number of lives saved in the U.S. by guns. I mean can you find 600 cases of people (regular citizens, not police) using a gun to suppress a murderer, or even a bank robber? Can you even find 6 cases? The idea that guns protect people is just made up. It sounds good on paper, but there just isn't consistent evidence that it's actually a real thing. And that's the thing about gun activists. They don't give a shit about safety. They just like guns. They know that loose gun laws cost lives, but they think that they cost few enough lives to justify their hobby. Of course, nobody admits to this, because "It's okay for a handful of kids to shoot themselves every year so I can take my shotty to the range" doesn't sound as good.
I don't think you understand how the concept of ownership works. Ownership is a human (and to some extent, non-human animal) invention. We only own things so far as other people agree that we own something. I could claim the entire planet, but it's not going to mean much unless people agree that I own the planet. You are able to own money, items, your house, etc. in part because society agrees that you own those things. You are also reaping other societal benefits from living in this country. For example, people from other societies cannot come here and steal your stuff from you in part because of the protection of the military. If you are going to reap the benefits of living in this society, you have obligations, and you know that you have obligations. You listed the consequences of not paying your taxes, which proves that you have knowledge of your societal obligation. The same goes for other laws. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.
I don't think you understand that I could stop talking about taxation and plug in whatever I want in its place with regard to your supposed reasoning:
Also, there is a difference between a cop-out and not wanting to repeat myself.
Oooh. I want to join the flame war!
Well, considering that the Federal 2016 budget calls for ~$4 Trillion in spending, then every man, woman, and child in their fair share should pay ~$13,331. Extrapolate that into just the people working and double that to $26,662. And that doesn't even cover State budgets. Oh, you may then want to argue that we should cut spending, but to get to the point where we could expect the poor to pay a "fair share" of the budget let alone start actually paying off the debt and you're left with no army, no social security, no federal medical care of any kind, and no welfare. Just about then would we be able to fund road repair (postal roads) and pay off the debt.
Or, you know, we could recognize that "fair share" is such a useless concept in itself and what should be discussed are what we consider important in the budget and not and figuring out how to reduce or remove those things that we don't want or need. That means a lot less war, a lot less federal welfare, a lot more state involvement in welfare (which means higher state taxes), etc. And it still translates into the rich paying 60% of the taxes or more. Because oddly if a millionaire pays 60% in taxes, he's still got $400,000 which is a hell of a lot more money to live off of than gross $11,770 (the Federal poverty level for one person in the US) or gross $15,080 (what you'd get at minimum wage working 52 weeks a year, 40 hour weeks). Unless, you know, you don't believe people who work full time should have any expectation to eat and have a place to live.
Government is a necessary evil. Because most people have decided that it's better to have a figurative gun put to their head and pay taxes than have a literal gun put to their head and have anarchy. If you wish differently, feel free to move to Somalia.
PS1 - The whole talk about "less gun violence in the UK" is a non sequitur. I don't particularly care if I'm murdered with a gun or a knife. If I'm dead, I'm dead. The frightening part in the US is the generally higher levels of violence and murder. One would do better to remove the gun culture (not the idea one can own a gun but that guns are sign of masculinity, should be touted as a means of violence and not mere defense, etc); but honestly, I think that is a symptom of Americanism in general, so not something that can be directly dealt with. It's just sad when certain subgroups (rednecks/parents/talking heads blaming rappers/hip hop/rock and roll) for it as if it weren't a problem in the US as a whole. *sigh*
PS2 - The whole discussion of poverty in the US is a problem, anyways. In a socialist state (which the US is), poverty has a very different meaning to what poverty means elsewhere. Elsewhere, it means not eating. It means not having a home but of what scrap you can cobble together. It means shanty towns and just generally massive insecurity on the most basic level. In the US and most western countries, there's medical care (if not the best or most immediate), food, and shelter. It's not the best. There's a "trap" that oddly a large percentage of people never move "up" in the "social order" and hence live their lives poor, middle, or rich. Perhaps if we acknowledge that there will also be poverty in terms of a pay check but the standard of living of even the poorest should be high enough and that should be the test of a society. Because we define in the US poverty at a certain level to judge who needs help to obtain those necessary services. And the rich pay for them in taxes because the free market can't adequately do the job.
PS3 - One vote DOES make a difference. Bernie Sanders was put on top by me. For all those who say they'll vote for Hillary because she's going to win, I'd like you to remember Obama. Like or hate him, he beat Hillary when everyone treated her as the de facto winner.
PS4 - Given the climate in the US, I think Bernie Sanders would/will be another Jimmy Carter. A good guy with the right ideas but without a society and by extension a Congress willing to take the steps to actually fix the issues we face. But, then, who knows. Perhaps we'll actually see some progress and not merely more fear used to justify atrocious spending.
Well, considering that the Federal 2016 budget calls for ~$4 Trillion in spending, then every man, woman, and child in their fair share should pay ~$13,331. Extrapolate that into just the people working and double that to $26,662. And that doesn't even cover State budgets. Oh, you may then want to argue that we should cut spending, but to get to the point where we could expect the poor to pay a "fair share" of the budget let alone start actually paying off the debt and you're left with no army, no social security, no federal medical care of any kind, and no welfare. Just about then would we be able to fund road repair (postal roads) and pay off the debt.
Or, you know, we could recognize that "fair share" is such a useless concept in itself and what should be discussed are what we consider important in the budget and not and figuring out how to reduce or remove those things that we don't want or need. That means a lot less war, a lot less federal welfare, a lot more state involvement in welfare (which means higher state taxes), etc. And it still translates into the rich paying 60% of the taxes or more. Because oddly if a millionaire pays 60% in taxes, he's still got $400,000 which is a hell of a lot more money to live off of than gross $11,770 (the Federal poverty level for one person in the US) or gross $15,080 (what you'd get at minimum wage working 52 weeks a year, 40 hour weeks). Unless, you know, you don't believe people who work full time should have any expectation to eat and have a place to live.
Government is a necessary evil. Because most people have decided that it's better to have a figurative gun put to their head and pay taxes than have a literal gun put to their head and have anarchy. If you wish differently, feel free to move to Somalia.
PS1 - The whole talk about "less gun violence in the UK" is a non sequitur. I don't particularly care if I'm murdered with a gun or a knife. If I'm dead, I'm dead. The frightening part in the US is the generally higher levels of violence and murder. One would do better to remove the gun culture (not the idea one can own a gun but that guns are sign of masculinity, should be touted as a means of violence and not mere defense, etc); but honestly, I think that is a symptom of Americanism in general, so not something that can be directly dealt with. It's just sad when certain subgroups (rednecks/parents/talking heads blaming rappers/hip hop/rock and roll) for it as if it weren't a problem in the US as a whole. *sigh*
PS2 - The whole discussion of poverty in the US is a problem, anyways. In a socialist state (which the US is), poverty has a very different meaning to what poverty means elsewhere. Elsewhere, it means not eating. It means not having a home but of what scrap you can cobble together. It means shanty towns and just generally massive insecurity on the most basic level. In the US and most western countries, there's medical care (if not the best or most immediate), food, and shelter. It's not the best. There's a "trap" that oddly a large percentage of people never move "up" in the "social order" and hence live their lives poor, middle, or rich. Perhaps if we acknowledge that there will also be poverty in terms of a pay check but the standard of living of even the poorest should be high enough and that should be the test of a society. Because we define in the US poverty at a certain level to judge who needs help to obtain those necessary services. And the rich pay for them in taxes because the free market can't adequately do the job.
PS3 - One vote DOES make a difference. Bernie Sanders was put on top by me. For all those who say they'll vote for Hillary because she's going to win, I'd like you to remember Obama. Like or hate him, he beat Hillary when everyone treated her as the de facto winner.
PS4 - Given the climate in the US, I think Bernie Sanders would/will be another Jimmy Carter. A good guy with the right ideas but without a society and by extension a Congress willing to take the steps to actually fix the issues we face. But, then, who knows. Perhaps we'll actually see some progress and not merely more fear used to justify atrocious spending.
Then why is it politicians and the media always use mass shootings as their platform for banning guns? Still, let's look at your points.
As you mentioned later in your post,
If someone wants to kill themselves, they'll find a way. Idiots who commit suicide don't trump my rights to own guns.
So will criminals.
3) 600 people accidentally shoot themselves every year in the U.S.[/QUOTE]
And 33,561 accidentally die in car accidents every year. We need to ban assault vehicles, don't you care about the children?
Last edited by Haloman800,
I was going to make next week's debate about 2nd amendment rights lol looks like we can skip over that one
car crashes are caused by a much broader range of circumstances than gun deaths
Also, just throwing it out there, but I find it interesting that people can say that wealthy people are paying more than their "fair share" while saying that "life isn't fair" to poorer people who can't afford to pay taxes. Food for thought
Or enforce better driver education
car crashes are caused by a much broader range of circumstances than gun deathsAlso, just throwing it out there, but I find it interesting that people can say that wealthy people are paying more than their "fair share" while saying that "life isn't fair" to poorer people who can't afford to pay taxes. Food for thought
There is a significant difference between Hillary vs. Obama and Hillary vs. Bernie. Bernie does not have the support from the demographics he needs in order to beat her. In fact, white liberals are the only demographic he appears to have locked down, and that is unlikely to change. History shows that Democratic primaries almost always include a more left-leaning, non-establishment candidate who doesn't win because he or she cannot court anyone but the white liberals. This is why Bernie is unlikely to do well in many places outside New Hampshire and Vermont. Obama did well as an alternative candidate because he was able to court non-white Democrats and war-weary Democrats/moderates who did not like that Hillary initially voted for the Iraq War.
That's not the say that one shouldn't vote for Bernie. If you like Bernie, vote for Bernie. Each vote matters. I am personally voting for Hillary in the primary because I like her too, I see the differences between Hillary and Bernie as negligible, and I think she has a better chance of winning against the Republican candidate in November.
He has Iowa currently, which is HUGE in the long run. We (Iowa) can determine the race with the help of a few other major states, depending on how big the swing is. But as I said, vote who you will, I just want to make sure you're not voting for Hillary because you're discouraged
The right to ownership comes from first principles, not public opinion. 1. You own yourself, therefore 2. You own what you create. These are derived from philosophy and the Socratic method. It can be summed up in the non-aggression principle (NAP) which states the initiation of force is immoral.
Taxation is the initiation of force and therefore is immoral.
Murder violates property rights and the NAP. People still get murdered in a statist society. Cops (government agents) murder people, too. Your point is irrelevant.
"People from other societies can't steal from you because the government is already stealing from you!" Great logic, bro. Pic related
To repeat yourself, you have to post a response to begin with, which you have failed to do so in those cases.
It's not huge in the long run. Iowa's Democrats are largely white liberals. It's one of the reasons Obama did so well there in 2008. It's not as much as New Hampshire and Vermont, but it's enough that it could make a difference for Bernie. However, it's probably not enough of a contiguous block for him to win there, but I could be wrong. In the latest polls, Hillary in winning in Iowa. Looking at the polls with the best track records there, Hillary is consistently winning. However, it is too early to tell. I almost added Iowa to my above list with New Hampshire and Vermont but decided not to for the reasons listed above. Regardless, those three states won't be enough for Bernie to beat Hillary, and they are not indicative of any national trends for the reasons I listed above.
It's force that keeps other people from stealing your stuff through force. You are directly benefiting from living in a society that supports property ownership. I also haven't said anything about morality. I'm talking about how ownership works, not how it should idealistically work.
Force is not inherently immoral. Self-defense, for example, is an example of force that is not immoral. When the price of admission for living in a particular society and reaping its benefits is taxation via representation, you're the one who is stealing when you refuse to pay taxes.
My example is not irrelevant when it demonstrates the fundamental problems with using "I did not sign a contract" as your reasoning.
Last edited by Lacius,
4 trillion too much.
Yes, the government should stop spending money it steals from citizens. It should also stop stealing from them to begin with.
There's no money in social security, and federal healthcare is an absolute trainwreck. Veterans (who get federal healthcare) have to wait 4 or 5 days to see a doctor.
Private roads are more efficient and cost less. Canada and USA already have these. If "public roads" ended tomorrow, private roads would fill the void.
It's not my responsibility to pay off debt I didn't accrue.
60% too much. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to one cent I earn.
Fixed.
The government puts a literal gun to your head if you don't pay them protection money (taxes). They are no different from the mafia.
Somalia is an Islamic caliphate, I love it when liberals bring it up as an example of a stateless society.
Different ethnic groups commit different levels of crime. For example, blacks are 13% of the US population, yet they commit over 50% of all murders. Only 3% of the UK is black, so a lower homicide rate is expected.
Source on homicide by ethnicity: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...w-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
Private charity does a much better job at (actually) helping the poor than government welfare does, which creates a permanent dependent underclass (which is what liberals want, a population dependent on the government so they can always count on their votes).[/quote][/QUOTE]
Last edited by Haloman800,
I answered every question from the OP except for the last one (who would I vote for if the election was today) because I didn't want it to affect my results. I also was too lazy to move the bar from least to most so basically I care about every issue equally. I also always picked something different than just yes and no (I always picked one of the extra options, except maybe 2-3 times).
Aaaaaaand it turns out I'm apparently 88% democrat (83% Bernie Sanders). But I am also a pretty entitled and lazy person in real life so that might explain it. The Ericzander of five years ago would have certainly been 80% republican. They also said I had no issues with Trump which I would strongly disagree with. I should probably go back and rank the questions but it didn't save my spot and I don't really wanna take it again. If you were to ask me beforehand what I considered myself I would have said about 60% democrat and 40% republican. Again, I think that if I actually ranked the issues the results would have changed. And I can also tell you that I think both Clinton and Trump are monsters, but if it came down to just them I have to vote for Trump.
This whole time I've been wondering if I should vote against Clinton in the primary by voting for Sanders or against Trump by voting for Bush/Carson (whichever is doing better at the time). Looks like this thing is telling me I should vote Sanders.
Aaaaaaand it turns out I'm apparently 88% democrat (83% Bernie Sanders). But I am also a pretty entitled and lazy person in real life so that might explain it. The Ericzander of five years ago would have certainly been 80% republican. They also said I had no issues with Trump which I would strongly disagree with. I should probably go back and rank the questions but it didn't save my spot and I don't really wanna take it again. If you were to ask me beforehand what I considered myself I would have said about 60% democrat and 40% republican. Again, I think that if I actually ranked the issues the results would have changed. And I can also tell you that I think both Clinton and Trump are monsters, but if it came down to just them I have to vote for Trump.
This whole time I've been wondering if I should vote against Clinton in the primary by voting for Sanders or against Trump by voting for Bush/Carson (whichever is doing better at the time). Looks like this thing is telling me I should vote Sanders.
- Status
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Well it helps when you get every Eidos game ever made for like 40 bucks on a 90% off Steam sale lol -
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Spent like 200 bucks one year doing that they had all kinds of collections on sale
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
