My most recent ideology results: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1004942928OP updated with a few more resources
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 HillaryMy 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.
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.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
Fair enoughI 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.
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.We decided as a country long ago that it is fair to have the people who can afford to pay higher taxes pay more than those who can't.
Once again,I still don't think anyone here is seriously talking about taking away all guns
Why not admit you were wrong?Smuff said:But my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns.
Leftist/liberal policies do keep people poor,If you think Democratic policies incentivize people being poor and that lower earners generally and willfully stay poor, I honestly have no idea how to respond to that.
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.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.
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.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.
I think I already explained the main problems with this reasoning.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 :^)
Nice cop out.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.
I'm glad we're in agreement the rich pay more than their fair share.Of course tax dollars from millionaires and billionaires are going to overwhelm that tax dollars from lower earners.
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.Do not pretend you are being held up at gunpoint.
Nope. I have zero obligation if I have not signed a contract.if you're going to live in this society, you have societal obligations
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.there would be no revenue for anything
Nice cop out x2. Socialism punishes success and rewards failure, that's an indisputable fact.I think I already explained the main problems with this reasoning.
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.Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens disarmed. To use the USA as an example, there are 350 million privately owned guns, if you banned them, criminals will still get them, and citizens will be easy targets now that they are unable to defend themselves.
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.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.
I did not sign a contract stating I wouldn't murder people. If I do murder, I will get arrested, 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.
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.
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.Banning guns has never been about stopping gangs and hardened criminals
As you mentioned later in your post,1) Most suicides in the US are from firearms
If someone wants to kill themselves, they'll find a way. Idiots who commit suicide don't trump my rights to own guns.without guns people will just kill themselves some other way.
So will criminals.2) Yes, gangs will always get guns
Or enforce better driver education car crashes are caused by a much broader range of circumstances than gun deathsAnd 33,561 accidentally die in car accidents every year. We need to ban assault vehicles, don't you care about the children?
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.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.
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 discouragedBernie does not have the support from the demographics he needs in order to beat her.
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.We only own things so far as other people agree that we own something.
I did not sign a contract stating I wouldn't murder people.
"People from other societies can't steal from you because the government is already stealing from you!" Great logic, bro. Pic relatedYou 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.
To repeat yourself, you have to post a response to begin with, which you have failed to do so in those cases.Also, there is a difference between a cop-out and not wanting to repeat myself.
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.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
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.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.
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.Taxation is the initiation of force and therefore is immoral.
My example is not irrelevant when it demonstrates the fundamental problems with using "I did not sign a contract" as your reasoning.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.
4 trillion too much.Well, considering that the Federal 2016 budget calls for ~$4 Trillion in spending
Yes, the government should stop spending money it steals from citizens. It should also stop stealing from them to begin with.Oh, you may then want to argue that we should cut spending
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.no social security, no federal medical care of any kind
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.Just about then would we be able to fund road repair
It's not my responsibility to pay off debt I didn't accrue.and pay off the debt.
60% too much. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to one cent I earn.And it still translates into the rich paying 60% of the taxes or more
Fixed.Government is... evil
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.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.
Somalia is an Islamic caliphate, I love it when liberals bring it up as an example of a stateless society.If you wish differently, feel free to move to Somalia.
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.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.
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]PS2 - And the rich pay for [welfare] in taxes because the free market can't adequately do the job.
So you support reduced funding for the military as well, right?Yes, the government should stop spending money it steals from citizens. It should also stop stealing from them to begin with.