# Where do you fall on the political spectrum?



## GhostLatte (Aug 17, 2018)

Would love to hear where you fall on it and your reasoning for doing so. As always, please be civil.

I consider myself to be an independent moderate. I can't see being a liberal or conservative when I see flaws on both sides.


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 17, 2018)

I honestly don't care about politics.
I got different views on society anyway.


----------



## DarthDub (Aug 17, 2018)

The alt-right according to Barren..


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 17, 2018)

I don't want undocumented people to enter the country illegally. According to the internet, I'm a nazi. Hi.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2018)

I consider myself a Progressive.


----------



## Viri (Aug 17, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> I don't want undocumented people to enter the country illegally. According to the internet, I'm a nazi. Hi.


Pretty much this. I'm pretty much Hitler.


----------



## MichiS97 (Aug 17, 2018)

See my title basically


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2018)

I've always been a rather mixed bag of believes, although I am a rather Left Liberal who leans rather heavily towards Communism. I also tend to gravitate towards Progressivism. I don't really cling to one political idea, but I tend to be rather against what a lot of Modern Conservatives are for.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Aug 17, 2018)

Viri said:


> Pretty much this. I'm pretty much Hitler.


Literally Hitler. /s

I fully support immigration and I think it has done wonderful things for this country and has made this country what it is. I do not support illegal immigration because there are many others whom have been waiting patiently for many years to immigrate to this country and it is unfair for others to think that they can just cut the line and screw all those that have been doing things in the proper legal way.

I have been leaning more right in recent years because of all the BS that the media is pulling to try to convince everyone else that the majority is left leaning.

I fully support someones right to be gay, transgender, or even a complete asshole, but I do not support allowing minors to go through hormone therapy and completely screw with their physiology especially when they are just following a trend and are only trying to discover themselves when their young minds are not mature enough to understand the long term effects of what they are doing to their bodies.

I do not support the apparent white genocide that the media is pushing.

I do not support the violence that the left has been pushing towards anyone whom supports Trump or republicans. Sadly, while the left is stating that the violence is all on the right side, they push for violence on to the right and it has happened far too much that people are getting regularly physically attacked just for their political stance... but then blame it on the right. Ironic.

I absolutely HATE the media and how they are making an army against white people and men. Anytime a white man does something wrong the media will put in the headline that it was a white man, but when a person of any other race does something wrong then the media will play them as a victim, not mention race (because it is racist then), or just ignore it altogether to support their agenda and confuse the general population that does not have their own brain to think with.

I strongly believe that if it wasn't for the media then many more people would support Trump and those that do support trump would not be afraid to publicly show it because those that do show their support end up getting attacked.

I just met this woman that is here illegally from Brazil. She started asking me about my political stance and I told her that I do not discuss politics because I don't want to make an enemy. She went on to say "Did you know that Trump hate immigrants?", and I was like "WTF, did you know his WIFE is an immigrant?". This woman is so ill informed that she is just being a sheep and following what other people are telling her without doing any research of her own. Luckily, this woman is doing what she can to become a citizen, but she is so afraid of what may happen to her because everyone has filled her mind with absolute bullshit.

All these idiots, especially CNN, keep trying to say that Trump is racist when there are literally thousands of images of him with people of other races, big celebs and political figures, and not one bit of evidence of him ever being racist at all. Funny, he was never once called a racist until he ran for office. Anything the left can do to tarnish his appearance and get others to hate him as well.

Now tell me, wtf is wrong with doing what you can in your power to protect the people of your country?

I do not support this feminist garbage that focuses only on what is happening in the US but doesn't try to fight for womens rights in other countries where there is true human rights violations.

I support equality, unfortunately, many of these feminists do not want equality, instead they want to kick men down and take away their rights. They want superiority, not equality.

I HATE how the corporations are trying censor everything that the right does.

All in all, this country is fucked. This planet is fucked. We are all doomed. The next few generations are going to be living in an absolute hell and I am glad I will be dead before it gets worse.


Now, I know I am going to get attacked for my stance, which just further will prove my point.
But at least no one can attack me for being white, because as you see in my profile picture I am actually Red, but I identify as clear.


----------



## Costello (Aug 17, 2018)

according to https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/










this is my personal opinion though, not that of the site or the team


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 17, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I've always been a rather mixed bag of believes, although I am a rather Left Liberal who leans rather heavily towards Communism. I also tend to gravitate towards Progressivism. I don't really cling to one political idea, but I tend to be rather against what a lot of Modern Conservatives are for.


Honestly, that pretty well describes where I sit. I'm incredibly far left for the US, but just left of center for basically the rest of the "developed" world


----------



## Xzi (Aug 17, 2018)

Progressive Democratic Socialist.  For some silly reason I think we should spend money on caring for our citizens and providing them with a living wage, rather than letting the rich who have no loyalty to any country fleece us on a yearly basis.  The right wing in the US has reached the literal definition of insanity: repeating the same experiment and expecting different results.  Years after Trump they'll still be waiting for the Reagan-era trickle down to get them out of their trailer parks.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 17, 2018)

I'm probably on the same political left side as @Costello, but I can't access the site from here (I tried both at home and at work). In any case: I've voted for the Belgian equivalent of Bernie Sanders. I probably won't vote for them again upcoming election, as their party not only didn't get elected, but got mixed up in a few scandals as well. That leaves me the choice of a (very small) further left party...borderline communism, really. I like their ideas and they do great opposition work, but as to realising their program...I think they're dreamers. The other potential choice is a bit larger and has a strong emphasis on the environment.

Anyhow...I'm all for the personal freedom, so all in favor of transgender rights. Equally against as much of military as possible (okay, humanitarian work is okay, but that money is better spent on other organisations). Maybe naive, but the whole arms race simply cannot be won. It can only cost you a lot if you spend it on weapons you don't use, and costs even more if you DO use them.



Song of storms said:


> I don't want undocumented people to enter the country illegally. According to the internet, I'm a nazi. Hi.


Bullshit. There are only people in favor of entering a country illegally if there aren't enough ways to do it legally. Crying victimhood like this is just needlessly antagonizing others (oooh...did the big, bad left wing called you a nazi because you don't like criminals? You poor little thing! /s). Either you're bringing your argument incorrectly or your argument isn't "just" that you don't want undocumented people to enter your country.

*sigh*

But on a personal level, I can't but make a confession on this stance: I too close my eyes to the horrors at the Mediterranean sea. As a pacifist I don't want Europe to intervene in the Middle east, but at the same time I don't want Europe to take in the immigrants who (rightfully) attempt to flee from that war. I'm not worried that they'll "take our jobs", but that these mass immigrations will create tensions within our already ethnical diverse population. 



DeadlyFoez said:


> All in all, this country is fucked. This planet is fucked. We are all doomed. The next few generations are going to be living in an absolute hell and I am glad I will be dead before it gets worse.


Hmm...that sounds a bit...right. 

<*insert drumroll*>

But okay...as you predicted: yes, I will attack you on your opinion. Not on feminism (to which I find myself agreeing in in more terms than I'd like) or even the anti-white movement (which...is something I really don't have a profound opinion about yet), but on your stance against the media.



DeadlyFoez said:


> I strongly believe that if it wasn't for the media then many more people would support Trump and those that do support trump would not be afraid to publicly show it because those that do show their support end up getting attacked.


Okay, I'll bite. The written media goes back many years (newspapers for hundreds of years, television some decades). There hasn't been unbiassed news since, what...the sixties? It's nothing new. Rather the contrary: the internet has ensured that those traditional means of media have less power than ever before. And we both know this to be true, as Trump has no editor, journalist or anyone to censor his twitter account.

Trump likes to play a victim of the media, but he forgets that he starts these fights on almost a daily basis. Is it really a wonder that the media picks up on the idea that he's racist when he literally calls his former employee (Omarosa) a dog? Sorry, but this whole "there is never any proof" simply isn't true. The media didn't make Trump say (quote) "_Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!_". He did. Plain and public, and without a trace of irony. The fact that media are against him is at best a consequence of his own actions...never the cause.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Aug 17, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Trump likes to play a victim of the media, but he forgets that he starts these fights on almost a daily basis. Is it really a wonder that the media picks up on the idea that he's racist when he literally calls his former employee (Omarosa) a dog? Sorry, but this whole "there is never any proof" simply isn't true. The media didn't make Trump say (quote) "_Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!_". He did. Plain and public, and without a trace of irony. The fact that media are against him is at best a consequence of his own actions...never the cause.


And this is where you are a sheep. Calling someone a dog is not racist by any means. You and the media only try to say its racist because it was about a person of color. What if he called a white person a dog? This is the first time i have ever heard that calling someone a dog is racist. Maybe calling a person of color a chimp or an ape could be seen as racist... but a dog? He was just holding back from calling her a bitch.
Try grasping at something a little better than that. When CNN has to make an article stating "Trump called Omarosa a dog, which is sexist and racist, and this is why" then we know all followers of CNN are not thinking with their own brains.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 17, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> And this is where you are a sheep. Calling someone a dog is not racist by any means. You and the media only try to say its racist because it was about a person of color. What if he called a white person a dog? This is the first time i have ever heard that calling someone a dog is racist. Maybe calling a person of color a chimp or an ape could be seen as racist... but a dog? He was just holding back from calling her a bitch.
> Try grasping at something a little better than that. When CNN has to make an article stating "Trump called Omarosa a dog, which is sexist and racist, and this is why" then we know all followers of CNN are not thinking with their own brains.


It doesn't matter if it's racist, sexist, or just plain offensive, the president shouldn't be calling any citizen a dog.  Let alone one that he personally hired on to his own staff.  The second anyone criticizes him he turns into a raving loon.  And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't respect us while the guy in the white house acts like a teeange edgelord daily on Twitter.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Aug 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't matter if it's racist, sexist, or just plain offensive, the president shouldn't be calling any citizen a dog.  Let alone one that he personally hired on to his own staff.  The second anyone criticizes him he turns into a raving loon.  And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't respect us while the guy in the white house acts like a teeange edgelord daily on Twitter.


Oh I love the hypocrisy.
So he is not allowed to insult someone, but it is alright for you and everyone else to insult him? Gotcha.

And it does matter bc the media is pushing the narrative of him being racist when the insult clearly is not.


----------



## kumikochan (Aug 17, 2018)

We call it differently in Europe but i would be a centralist slightly leaning towards right.


----------



## kuwanger (Aug 17, 2018)

I believe that if at the drop of a hat a company can decide to move to another country and the only major thing stopping them is logistics that employees should have the same right to follow the jobs.  I guess that makes me a conservative free marketer or something, right?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 17, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Oh I love the hypocrisy.
> So he is not allowed to insult someone, but it is alright for you and everyone else to insult him? Gotcha.
> 
> And it does matter bc the media is pushing the narrative of him being racist when the insult clearly is not.


"Criticize" is not the same as "insult," but when you've got the mentality of a child it's easy to take any light criticism as an insult.  And that's how nothing improves.

Give me a break, Trump has been a known racist since the 60s/70s.  The very first newspaper article about Trump was on discrimination in choosing his apartment tenants.  Trump started the birther lie, and he officially opened his campaign for president by calling Mexicans rapists and drug mules.  If you're okay with the president being racist that's one thing, but it's ridiculous to pretend Trump is somebody he isn't.  He continues to employ the Southern Strategy that Republicans have used for decades, but Trump uses a bullhorn instead of a dogwhistle.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Aug 17, 2018)

Oh i love how his words have been twisted around. Please show me full evidence where he says every mexican is a rapist, drug mule... etc.
Are you going to deny the fact that MANY illegals have been rapists, murders, and drugs mules?


----------



## bodefuceta (Aug 17, 2018)

Sorry, my opinions are illegal.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 17, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Oh i love how his words have been twisted around. Please show me full evidence where he says every mexican is a rapist, drug mule... etc.
> Are you going to deny the fact that MANY illegals have been rapists, murders, and drugs mules?


See, you've switched immediately to justifying, which shows that you know there's something offensive/racist there if you're listening from someone else's point of view.  There are a million more quotes that show Trump is a racist, but there's no point in me posting any of them because you'll find any excuse for any of them.  Just be fine with the fact that the president is a racist if you want to continue supporting him, or otherwise vote him out.  He was supposedly just the lesser of two evils in a really shitty election choice anyway.


----------



## VinsCool (Aug 17, 2018)

I guess I'm leaning to the left side, but mostly I lean towards the "No fuck given, this planet sucks" side.


----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 17, 2018)

I'm on the "political discussions often tear people apart, and siding with one or the other is bound to get you called out" side.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 17, 2018)

VinsCool said:


> I guess I'm leaning to the left side, but mostly I lean towards the "No fuck given, this planet sucks" side.


I'm with you on that to an extent, but at the same time, long periods of collective apathy have been much of what caused this planet to suck in large part.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 17, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Oh I love the hypocrisy.
> So he is not allowed to insult someone, but it is alright for you and everyone else to insult him? Gotcha.


He is the figurehead of the United States of America, so uh... no, he's not.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DeadlyFoez said:


> Oh i love how his words have been twisted around. Please show me full evidence where he says every mexican is a rapist, drug mule... etc.
> Are you going to deny the fact that MANY illegals have been rapists, murders, and drugs mules?


Yes, actually, I do believe we are

Edit: I also love how you've qualified your statement in a way that would disqualify the famous "they're not sending their best" "they're thugs, rapists..." quote, simply because he tacked on "and some, I assume, are good people"

Which, I mean, objectively DOESN'T make the statement any better


----------



## JellyPerson (Aug 18, 2018)

according to isidewith.com i am a 78% republican

guess you can call me hitler jr


----------



## Skittyusedcovet (Aug 18, 2018)

I dont really get politics and its also not really my cup of tea either.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Aug 18, 2018)

Ok, I will finish off with this.

The point of a discussion and debate is to hopefully get the other side to see your point of view. Since none of us are willing to budge on our stances, I am going to just dip out of this conversation. I don't want to get upset with anyone, and I don't want anyone to get upset with me. I like all you guys here and I would hate to create an enemy over a political stance. We all have our opinions and I don't want to continue to pointlessly go in circles.

But, I do thank you all for contributing to the discussion.


----------



## kuwanger (Aug 18, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> The point of a discussion and debate is to hopefully get the other side to see your point of view.



I think that varies greatly.  Part of a discussion or a debate can also simply to be exposed to a lot of different points of views and see how they're presented/defended/explained.



DeadlyFoez said:


> Since none of us are willing to budge on our stances, I am going to just dip out of this conversation.



Now you're talking less about debate and more about conversion.  If it was merely about seeing someone else's point of view, then I think I generally see your point of view.  I just don't really agree with it.  I hope you see my point of view, even if you don't really agree with it.  That's the foundation of tolerance and understanding.  If all you're after is conversion, though, then all you'll ever get is strife.


----------



## McWhiters9511 (Aug 18, 2018)

i fall into the category of wanting what’s right. the fact people choose what they believe solely because they’re part of a party and are limited to that parties so called beliefs is half the reason politics is getting nowhere except pissing people off.


----------



## GBAer (Aug 18, 2018)

My friend has Trump Derangement Syndrome and thinks that I'm a Nazi, so that must make me a Nazi.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 18, 2018)

McWhiters9511 said:


> i fall into the category of wanting what’s right. the fact people choose what they believe solely because they’re part of a party and are limited to that parties so called beliefs is half the reason politics is getting nowhere except pissing people off.


Politics pisses people off because we can't all agree on what's right.  Divisive political figures like Trump certainly don't help, and Republicans obviously weren't so abrasive in the past.  Even GWB had his humanitarian side and recognized you have to be president for the whole country, not just your own base.  Trump instead has his NPD side fighting his Alzheimer's side constantly, which is why he's continued to hold campaign rallies two years into his presidency.


----------



## RustInPeace (Aug 18, 2018)




----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 18, 2018)

GBAer said:


> My friend has Trump Derangement Syndrome and thinks that I'm a Nazi, so that must make me a Nazi.


How'd he come to that conclusion?


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 18, 2018)

libertarian-ish
fiscal conservative.
fairly liberal on social issues.
strict constructionist wrt: the Constitution (it's a document. what applies is the intent of its authors. there's no such thing as a 'living document.')

Edit -- 

Also, disclosure: at 51yo with two kids at 24yo and 15yo, and a third child that passed away at 2yo, and nearly twenty years of practicing criminal or related law, I've got a bit more exposure to 'life' than most here and that tends to tighten up your views over time. 28 years ago I was a college dropout in a band, with hair past my shoulders and a bong under the coffee table. People change. It'll happen to you.


----------



## aykay55 (Aug 18, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Would love to hear where you fall on it and your reasoning for doing so. As always, please be civil.
> 
> I consider myself to be an independent moderate. I can't see being a liberal or conservative when I see flaws on both sides.


I'm an extreme liberal in most cases. Laws get outdated, and must be updated along with society.


----------



## x65943 (Aug 18, 2018)

My strongest opinion is that local governments should make most decisions concerning their community. I think that those that live in a community know what they need best.

Central governments are necessary to conduct international trade and protect civil liberties, but that's where their role should end.

And of course a government should be of the people and for the people. Safeguarding personal freedoms should be the government's primary directive. 

Other than that I think it's up to the people to decide their fate. Different economic models etc are not of much concern to me as long as the other tenants are upheld.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 18, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> fiscal conservative.


Ah yes, the good ol' days when Republicans at least pretended to care about keeping spending low while simultaneously ballooning the already-bloated defense budget.  Sadly, I don't think fiscal conservatism is really a political alignment that exists post-GWB, at least not one that gets any representation in government.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Ah yes, the good ol' days when Republicans at least pretended to care about keeping spending low while simultaneously ballooning the already-bloated defense budget. * Sadly, I don't think fiscal conservatism is really a political alignment that exists post-GWB, at least not one that gets any representation in government.*



We definitely agree on that.


----------



## orangy57 (Aug 18, 2018)

left wing. I feel like it's better to be on the left or the right, like everyone says "I'm a centrist" but like when you're voting there is no center it's what you stand closest to. Sure not all of my values are on the left, but it's never expected for the candidate that i want to be a carbon copy of my views, so i'll still vote left.


----------



## Chary (Aug 18, 2018)

Saying you're in the middle because you see flaws on both sides, in and of itself is flawed, as even the direct middle line is flawed, too. 

I tend to go a little right. I preferred Trump to Hillary this past election, I found the Republican Party utterly pathetic when they faced Obama, though to the latter himself, I didn't think was amazing either. 

On hot divisive topics, I feel like abortion should be frowned upon, purely on the grounds of people should be provided easy access to contraceptives. Why in the ever living crispity crap should women have to deal with abortions when the way better option is to, yknow, prevent that at the outset. I have no sympathy for illegal immigrants. I love the ability to own a gun, but that's partially because I'm an incredibly weak, short female, and I value the defense it provides. I tend to lean a little right, but when push comes to shove, I grab a little from both political sides to form my opinions. 

According to the cool site Costello linked, I'm:




 

Smidge right, and smidge libertarian.


----------



## kuwanger (Aug 18, 2018)

Chary said:


> purely on the grounds of people should be provided easy access to contraceptives. Why in the ever living crispity crap should women have to deal with abortions when the way better option is to, yknow, prevent that at the outset.



"Almost half (49%) of U.S. pregnancies are unintended, more than 3 million unintended pregnancies per year." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#United_States_of_America

"In the US it is estimated that 52% of unintended pregnancies result from couples not using contraception in the month the woman got pregnant, and 43% result from inconsistent or incorrect contraceptive use; only 5% result from contraceptive failure, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#Prevention_2

"unintended pregnancies result in about 800,000 abortions/year" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#United_States_of_America

Put another way, every year about 73,500 pregnancies occur because of contraceptive failure and about 632,100 pregnancies occur because of inconsistent or incorrect contraceptive use.  Meanwhile, about 764,400 pregnancies occur because of no contraceptive use. So, it sounds like a bigger issue than ease of access to contraceptives.  That's definitely a part of it, but such a big incorrect/inconsistent use of contraceptives is rather disturbing.

PS - And reading a bit more, it sounds like funding and encouraging hormonal IUDs which have a 0.1-0.2% typical failure rate would be much more ideal to the typical 5-9% for pills/injectables or 17% for condoms.  Or about 2,940 unintended pregnancies per year vs the current 1.47 million per year in the US.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 18, 2018)

Moderate left. Just happens to be where most policies I can agree with lie on the spectrum. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 18, 2018)

This is what I ended up with, for anyone who's curious:


----------



## bennyman123abc (Aug 18, 2018)

I don't give a fuck. We're going to die anyway.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 18, 2018)

About what I expected. I wonder why it didn't have any questions about immigration.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Aug 18, 2018)

Chary said:


> Saying you're in the middle because you see flaws on both sides, in and of itself is flawed, as even the direct middle line is flawed, too.
> 
> I tend to go a little right. I preferred Trump to Hillary this past election, I found the Republican Party utterly pathetic when they faced Obama, though to the latter himself, I didn't think was amazing either.
> 
> ...


How is it flawed to be in the middle? It may mean i'm ignorant. But i'm happy being ignorant when it comes to politics. I hate them with all my heart and other vital organs. Both right and left. Hate fucking them.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2018)

To those interested









DeslotlCL said:


> How is it flawed to be in the middle? It may mean i'm ignorant. But i'm happy being ignorant when it comes to politics. I hate them with all my heart and other vital organs. Both right and left. Hate fucking them.


One of the main true flaws with people who try the "middle ground" approach is that they end up being enablers. One example being the so called "Centralists" who defend Nazis because it's their "freedom of speech," while ignoring the dangers neo-Nazis pose. Or the people who sit in silence and basically enable extremism by simply not doing about it or "defending their right to do so." Basically the middle ground is exploitable by extremists.


----------



## Chary (Aug 18, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> How is it flawed to be in the middle? It may mean i'm ignorant. But i'm happy being ignorant when it comes to politics. I hate them with all my heart and other vital organs. Both right and left. Hate fucking them.


I mean it in the sense of no one just has a perfect thought process, and choosing not to side with either doesn't absolve your opinion of flaws. I don't label myself as fully right nor left, but that doesn't mean my opinions aren't utterly flawed, either.


----------



## JellyPerson (Aug 18, 2018)

Call me Hitler, because I'm a bit authoritarian and a but Republican!


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 18, 2018)

Whelp


----------



## emigre (Aug 18, 2018)

I'm a Social Democrat.


----------



## crns (Aug 18, 2018)

I had hoped tests like these would be long gone..


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 18, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Bullshit. There are only people in favor of entering a country illegally if there aren't enough ways to do it legally. Crying victimhood like this is just needlessly antagonizing others (oooh...did the big, bad left wing called you a nazi because you don't like criminals? You poor little thing! /s). Either you're bringing your argument incorrectly or your argument isn't "just" that you don't want undocumented people to enter your country.


GTFO with the victim mentality when we're the ones called "nazis" for things you don't agree with.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2018)

crns said:


> I had hoped tests like these would be long gone..



I am pretty sure no one actually takes these tests at face value. They are decent enough to give very broad ideas, but obviously not in depth enough to give an actual answer to where someone actually falls on the political spectrum. In other words, we are using it for fun because it adds something to the conversation.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 18, 2018)

I'm a libertarian which basically means I'm all for individual rights and as little government as possible. I will never be on either team because at the end of the day they are in fact both authoritarian just in different ways.


----------



## Exannor (Aug 18, 2018)

This is where I fall on the political spectrum on gotoquiz lmao

In the second photo, this is where I actually fall.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 18, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> How is it flawed to be in the middle? It may mean i'm ignorant. But i'm happy being ignorant when it comes to politics. I hate them with all my heart and other vital organs. Both right and left. Hate fucking them.


Because the "middle" is directly controlled by how far whichever side can pull the spectrum to their own extreme. This is an incredibly extreme example, but when the far end of one side is saying "hey we should cleanse an entire subset of the population because we're racially superior" and the far end of the other side is saying "how about we DON'T kill people, and if you try to spread that ideology we will physically fight you," logically speaking the '''''middle''''' would be "hey, let's NOT fight those people, and as a compromise they only get to kill SOME people"

There are some stances where you CAN'T allow compromise on one side or the other, because one side quite literally is just wrong. And as Lilith said, when you take a middle ground stance on a topic where one side is objectively wrong and has the means to enact their stance in a way that will cause harm to their target population, then you're doing more to help them than you are their opposition

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Song of storms said:


> GTFO with the victim mentality when we're the ones called "nazis" for things you don't agree with.


Oh, boo hoo, you got called a name of a political stance that's making a rise and actually fucking affecting people again, if you don't like it then change your stance to something that mirrors them less or do a bit more to defend why you AREN'T one. There are actually people being killed and brutalized because they don't have the means to leave their area without being tracked by their abusers, which is what @Taleweaver is talking about, so I'd say that's a fair fucking bit worse than being called a name


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 18, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh, boo hoo, you got called a name of a political stance that's making a rise and actually fucking affecting people again, if you don't like it then change your stance to something that mirrors them less or do a bit more to defend why you AREN'T one. There are actually people being killed and brutalized because they don't have the means to leave their area without being tracked by their abusers, which is what @Taleweaver is talking about, so I'd say that's a fair fucking bit worse than being called a name


Oh yeah, because I'm totally a nazi for opposing undocumented immigrants to enter the country illegally. It's not like your kind is purposely overusing this serious accusation. Not at all!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 18, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Oh yeah, because I'm totally a nazi for opposing undocumented immigrants to enter the country illegally. It's not like your kind is purposely overusing this serious accusation. Not at all!


"My kind", ok

And look. You've defended yourself. It's not that bad. Somehow I think you'll recover from this heinous, heinous accusation of being aligned with a fascist political party who's entire mantra is opposing immigration in order to preserve a Master Race on a particular issue


----------



## WiiHomebrew+Snes (Aug 18, 2018)

I'm honestly not sure. politicalcompass.org says this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But there were a lot of questions that I felt unsure or in the middle on or would answer differently depending on the specifics. For example, the question on if weed should be legal if it's for personal use. I do agree with that, but with restrictions on being able to do so depending on the circumstances. I would like to find a more in depth quiz. But generally I don't really like politics, or either of the two main candidates of the 2016 US presidential election.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 18, 2018)

Never quite sure.

Born in the wrong century techno utopian would be my normal approach to the world. I would like to believe a certain amount of pragmatism is also at play there. More science/engineering, understanding of the universe and such doing well here.

In no particular order

Any country even vaguely with the means that does not do cradle-grave healthcare for their poorest residents and at least emergency for those passing through I find to be disagreeable. Free is better but I can see having some chuck something in the pot as acceptable. The US approach to such things is not one I care for at all and would possibly call extremely callous. While it is probably whatever passes for huggy-feely in me that primarily wants that I also note the huge practical benefits of it.

While universal basic income might be a bit much for today (though depending upon the extent of automation and trend towards skills it may happen sooner than later) I would say a fully developed welfare system is good stuff. The UK and Nordic countries having a lot of ideas I like here. I similarly don't see work as virtuous in and of itself and 

Schooling wise. I once heard it said that the ultimate goal of academia is to produce more professors and it would be something I agree with. To that end while I would push for maximum educational availability I would reform it a lot from what it is today. I would also say to have a specialist without a broad base is to really have missed a trick. I think I will go with a Robert Heinlein quote I was once reminded of "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." for while it does not entirely encapsulate what I want it gets closer than the rote memorisation for military and factory workers that so much education presently seems to be.

Environment wise. There are many ways to be a dick but I find many ideas from the same people that bring us "carbon credits" to be moronic. Similarly as a great song once said "never trust a hippy".

"inclusion wise". Don't give a fuck what place you hail from, skin colour you have, sex you are, whether your sex matches your gender... all are useless as predictors in the meeting a person on the street test. Age might have some bearing but fairly limited after about 14. Religion on the other hand can go fuck itself and while I will happily do business, live with, talk with... Seeing religion slowly die has been a great pleasure in my life thus far. Foreign policy wise then direct action is tricky. "Allowing" ideas to flow though works well, though also be prepared to defend your beachhead as I don't want another Tunisia. Religion is a choice, give or take what you want to make of developmental psychology, and as such I find the conflation with innate characteristics to be troubling when people list things. Speaking of listing things the x^y^z number of genders, no biological differences between sexes, "racism can not be done by non white people", if two candidates of equal capability apply for a single slot then I must play the "disadvantaged background" game... notions I see floated by a few presently notable groups I find to be so intensely aggravating it is rather hard to understate. It seems somewhat akin to religion in its capability to deny reality. It also seems that where someone with the "opposite" of what I want to approach the world with and I can work together to get something done I see no real chance of getting stuff done with those of the groups previously mentioned.

If then things are split between "left and right", however incomparable between places a lot of that is (with the possible exception of some small few in Northern Ireland then no UK politician cares about abortion to even contemplate saying ban it, none would say defund the national health service*, the military is a thing that wants to be effective but at no points should the focus be as myopic as I see some in the US have, religion is all but dead in UK politics... and that is all most of the bread and butter of US right wing politics) then I guess I would want to go left but they are making it really really hard for me to do it.

*the UK leaving the EU thing is complicated (see the history of Eurosceptics) but was primarily a push from the rightmost part of UK politics. One of their main campaign... not really a promise (you can't promise things if you don't have a plan) but a key phrase was to use the money presently going to the EU to instead fund said national health service.

Similarly while the "traditional family" and something drawing from gender roles is something I could see some advocate for (outcomes wise having two parents seems to work well, and as far as happiness goes this integrated workforce thing has some fair downsides) I at no point want to see it enforced and also take pleasure in having seen such things also die. Anybody gets a chance to play it how they will and make it work for them. To criticise those for either not pushing a narrative or for not adhering to tradition is of the poorest taste to me. I see no problem with falling birthrates beyond people seemingly having realised that "pyramid scheme" was not a good model for pensions and wanting more people in the workforce to keep it going a bit longer.

Drugs. While the ability to put whatever you like in yourself would be one I support and criminalising addicts is both cruel and ineffective (to say nothing of effectively funding criminals) I can also support. Portugal's approach here is interesting -- we don't like them, will regulate things, will classify things, wish you didn't do it, police can "refer" you to support services, "weights" make you a dealer which can get a kicking, and if you take something and endanger others as a result you can get a slapping. Alcohol can certainly mess you up but it at least does something, unlike tobacco which seems like a way of accomplishing basically nothing at considerable cost to you in health and the wallet.

Guns. They can certainly be fun but I am not overly bothered to see them reduced in scope either -- drugs may mostly fuck up your body but guns disproportionately fuck up mine. If you want to jump through the hoops to do a club type thing then I can see something working there.

Vaccination wise. You can be a moron and deny yourself and your kids the chance. Don't be surprised when you get excluded from schools, jobs and more besides though. Similarly if you fail to report, do things that can spread things and don't treat things then don't be surprised to see the law come knocking.

Intellectual property thoughts. Don't like the US approach to patents -- software, no reseeding crops and patenting DNA tests are an affront to all that such things should stand for. Copyright time limits are also way way way too long and restrictive. Either make them shorter or do some kind of attribution based setup. Trademarks are broadly OK to me. I imagine in the next 10-15 years I will have more to say about patents when 3d printing becomes cheaper and cheaper and companies with enough money in the bank to hire a lawyer see the ground falling out from beneath them and send in the lawyers.

Styles of government. "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die" is a rather accurate summation of human psychology and prior to handing over things to some benevolent AI then politicos are human. To that end I want someone to talk to when there is a pothole in the road on my way to town, and I want someone to talk to about progressively larger and larger affairs. I don't know what the setup is here and most of the US styled discourse is not even extremes (usually phrased as small government vs big government) but the same side of the coin.
I also hate that a lot of politicos are career politicos, or lawyers which are effectively the same thing with the third category of "business is my business" being not too far removed from either of those. This is mainly as practical skills seems to be rather weak among those trades and it is all down to words.
I don't mind some shortcuts, social engineering and pressure to get people, generally animals not capable of seeing too many bigger pictures, to do things which benefit themselves and the place at large. Much discussion can be had on the scope of things here though.

At the same time I never want to see a corporatocracy. Right now some seem to have noticed we have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle with a lot of discourse being effectively controlled by a few companies in California and are contemplating laws, while I can see a path to that I reckon technology is the better bet. Much like torrents messed up things nice and good for a lot of companies and cryptocurrency has done a lot as well then we can probably get something done with some kind of distributed setup, whether it be true p2p or something more like usenet I do not know. Not sure where I would place a bet on the first company to fall here, save perhaps discord when people realise once more it is not good to only allow servers to be hosted by someone else. More traditionally no company has ever built a road out of the goodness of their hearts. There is almost a legal stipulation for companies to pursue profit above all else and while I am still going to say pursue profit I also want to see them... if it was normal person interactions then have a punt and have a laugh.

Globalism. Probably a bit too soon for world government, crack the someone for my pothole and someone to organise relief efforts for events far away from me bit and it will likely happen. If you don't have diplomats and observers everywhere, at every conference, at every with serious local expertise at play and redundancy there then you screwed up and screwed up hard.

Military. I find the almost soldier worship thing the US has going on at times to be... kind of perverse really. It's a hard job and I won't diss them for it but I view many "think of the veterans" lines much like I do "think of the children" and used by as many spurious arguments. Modern war is rather loud and intense at times, and we seem to have developed effective shortcuts which get people to kill, however neither of those seem to be all that factored into the aftermath -- you break it, you fix it or pay someone to do so.

Spies/intelligence. Keep people fat and happy and they won't do what it takes to send some cunt to blow you up. More stats, targetted aid and get that information in there, whether you do that with a parade of tourists bringing newspapers or by sending in hidden pipes is a different matter. James Bond ninja stuff is fun and all with the potential for some wicked stories but drop in the ocean and all that. The "promoting business and services of a country" aspect of being a spook that so seldom seems talked about... part of the game really, try not to be a dick about it though.

US politician wise. What I made of the previous election was Mrs Clinton was an utterly unremarkable, bog standard politician, Mr Trump was horribly ill equipped to do well in the role. Political and economic inertia and geography mean Mr Trump is not going to, or indeed even really be capable of, messing things up. However he will be if not a weak leader then an ill suited one in a time when a strong and better suited one would have been welcome -- China (and maybe India depending upon how they play it) thanks you US citizens.

I have never found a political party that does what I care for here. Probably why I don't vote and never have.


----------



## Closet Nerd (Aug 18, 2018)

Chary said:


> Saying you're in the middle because you see flaws on both sides, in and of itself is flawed, as even the direct middle line is flawed, too.
> 
> I tend to go a little right. I preferred Trump to Hillary this past election, I found the Republican Party utterly pathetic when they faced Obama, though to the latter himself, I didn't think was amazing either.
> 
> ...



Thats hot.


----------



## Searinox (Aug 18, 2018)

Strongly socially liberal, secular, humanistic, transhumanist supporter, skeptic, atheist, moderately socialist, globalist, cosmopolitan, interventionistic, anti-quackery, crypto-anarchist, sexually inclusive, pro-science and moderately libertarian. I believe I fit somewhere in the green.


----------



## Kingy (Aug 18, 2018)

I would say I'm a conservative- not too much of one though, but enough to identify myself as one. And I absolutely hate the party.


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 18, 2018)

The mods here won't even allow me to allude to or hint at my position without loading my profile up with warnings or suspending me for a week again, so I really couldn't tell you.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 18, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> The mods here won't even allow me to allude to or hint at my position without loading my profile up with warnings or suspending me for a week again, so I really couldn't tell you.


That _may_ just be an indication that there's something wrong with your position in general, unless you're being dramatic in an attempt to make people sympathize with how "unfair" it is to be a conservative on a site with moderators that are socially left of center


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 18, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That _may_ just be an indication that there's something wrong with your position in general, unless you're being dramatic in an attempt to make people sympathize with how "unfair" it is to be a conservative on a site with moderators that are socially left of center


No, it's okay, I know I represent unpopular/suppressed opinions.

I wouldn't call my self a conservative either... the quiz people took here only put me center and slightly right. Like... fuck, I hate to use Chary's term, a smidge.

A lot of those questions didn't really work for me, because I do believe certain aspects of society do very well warrant being regulated by the state, just... you know, it wasn't worded in the way that applied to my beliefs.

You know what I'm saying, friend? You guys that gang up on reasonables literally showed up on the communist left side of the chart, so I was almost hoping I would test as ultra shitlord on the right... didn't happen though.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 19, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> No, it's okay, I know I represent unpopular/suppressed opinions.
> 
> I wouldn't call my self a conservative either... the quiz people took here only put me center and slightly right. Like... fuck, I hate to use Chary's term, a smidge.
> 
> A lot of those questions didn't really work for me, because I do believe certain aspects of society do very well warrant being regulated by the state, just... you know, it wasn't worded in the way that applied to my beliefs.


?? If that's the case, what views do you think are being suppressed?...


----------



## leon315 (Aug 19, 2018)

THIS IS GAMING FORUM, we would we deal that dirty shit here?
GET THE F OUT OF HERE! And we don't care about politics.


----------



## Kingy (Aug 19, 2018)

leon315 said:


> THIS IS GAMING FORUM, we would we deal that dirty shit here?
> GET THE F OUT OF HERE! And we don't care about politics.


... you say on the politics subforum.


----------



## guicrith (Aug 19, 2018)

Fiscally communist, socially alt-right.
I think profit motives are holding back progress, but so is all the whiny victim diversity shit, like telling someone they cant have dreadlocks because they are white or they have to learn a new pronoun for everyone they meet.


----------



## Viri (Aug 19, 2018)

leon315 said:


> THIS IS GAMING FORUM, we would we deal that dirty shit here?
> GET THE F OUT OF HERE! And we don't care about politics.


The mods got sick of political shit popping up in the gaming section, so made a political section, which you're complaining in. So, now the mods can munch pop corn, and watch people fight over their political side. It's fun,


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ?? If that's the case, what views do you think are being suppressed?...


I get warned, deleted, and suspended for posting, so I can't even say.


----------



## Viri (Aug 19, 2018)

Chary said:


> I love the ability to own a gun, but that's partially because I'm an incredibly weak, short female, and I value the defense it provides.


Well, when you gonna buy a gun, if you don't already own one?


----------



## face235 (Aug 19, 2018)

I loathe politics and everything related to it. Do I care what Donald Trump says, or what Hillary Clinton says, about anything at all?

A clue: No.

I am evolving beyond the need for those things. I'm not pressing B anymore.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 19, 2018)

guicrith said:


> Fiscally communist, socially alt-right.
> I think profit motives are holding back progress, but so is all the whiny victim diversity shit, like telling someone they cant have dreadlocks because they are white or they have to learn a new pronoun for everyone they meet.


....... What do you THINK the ideals of the alt-right are, if I may ask?


Glyptofane said:


> I get warned, deleted, and suspended for posting, so I can't even say.


Wanna PM me then? I'm genuinely curious


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 19, 2018)

FAST6191 Going to have to read all that later. 


Anyway, shouldn't strong military be separate from intervening? Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I mean, maybe some people want a big army for protection and want to keep to themselves. 



face235 said:


> I loathe politics and everything related to it. Do I care what Donald Trump says, or what Hillary Clinton says, about anything at all?
> 
> A clue: No.
> 
> I am evolving beyond the need for those things. I'm not pressing B anymore.





Xzi said:


> I'm with you on that to an extent, but at the same time, long periods of collective apathy have been much of what caused this planet to suck in large part.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 19, 2018)

I don't care about modern politics, as it diverts from the real issue and digs into "personal resolve" instead of trying to rectify real world issues. It's why I think there should be an option to hide this sub forum. There are some valid views, but some of us take it to heart and refuse to indulge in differing viewpoints. Some of us also like to scream like banshees everytime a certain name pops up.


----------



## Closet Nerd (Aug 19, 2018)

I like to think of myself as just to the right of Hammurabi. In reality, i'm probably classically liberal I guess.

Took that survey. Admittedly, I chose "neutral" on some of the more complex questions.


----------



## Viri (Aug 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> It's why I think there should be an option to hide this sub forum.


Agreed. There should be an option to hide this subforum, and sidebar notifications of topics from this subforum.


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 19, 2018)

Viri said:


> Agreed. There should be an option to hide this subforum, and sidebar notifications of topics from this subforum.


Now that's a little exc--


ip60 said:


> You are a pathetic person, to still be supporting trump after all you've seen.
> 
> You'll never change.


Yep. There should be an option like that.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 19, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> Now that's a little exc--
> 
> Yep. There should be an option like that.


Not really against an option, but you can also just choose to ignore it. You didn't have to look at this thread, let alone post.


----------



## VinsCool (Aug 19, 2018)

Just did the test for real, got more or less what I expected.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> I don't care about modern politics, as it diverts from the real issue and digs into "personal resolve" instead of trying to rectify real world issues.


It's hard to work on rectifying current issues when we elect regressive leadership that continuously adds new issues to rectify.  At least 30% of the country believes we can get out of any hole by digging deeper.


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 19, 2018)

Keep it civil people!
It's just a simple question of where one falls in the political spectrum, not a personal war.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 19, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> I don't want undocumented people to enter the country illegally. According to the internet, I'm a nazi. Hi.


why not? that's exactly what your forefathers did.


----------



## guicrith (Aug 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ....... What do you THINK the ideals of the alt-right are, if I may ask?


That Islam is a violent religion(I also acknowledge Catholicism is a child rape cult and that isnt any better), that immigrants must assimilate to the their new culture(you get 2 years to learn the language, if you dont your out), revoke all special treatment(special ed, disability benefits, affirmative action), that natural selection is good(yes, that includes letting those with severe disabilitys die if they cant walk to the cabinet to get food or change their own diaper, I know they cant breed but they are a waste of resources since they cant have a good life anyway), anti-censorship(anything goes, all information should be free and legal).

I differ on some of their opinions though:
Immigration is fine, everyone should have the chance to live where they want and your innocent until proven guilty unlike the beliefs of some.
I am open to more liberal opinions and wont dismiss an entire persons beliefs over 1 thing I find stupid or factually wrong.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 19, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> why not? that's exactly what your forefathers did.


For a second I thought you were talking about the Nazi part and I was like _OOF
_
But yeah, no, I'm totally with you there, a lot of people don't understand that crossing the border to seek refuge is actually a legal method of entry, and on top of that I've never gotten why the same people that bemoan how tyrannical and overreaching our central government is, suddenly trust them to enforce laws that they wrote on who should be able to enter the country for what reasons, and when

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



guicrith said:


> That Islam is a violent religion(I also acknowledge Catholicism is a child rape cult and that isnt any better), that immigrants must assimilate to the their new culture(you get 2 years to learn the language, if you dont your out), revoke all special treatment(special ed, disability benefits, affirmative action), that natural selection is good(yes, that includes letting those with severe disabilitys die if they cant walk to the cabinet to get food or change their own diaper, I know they cant breed but they are a waste of resources since they cant have a good life anyway), anti-censorship(anything goes, all information should be free and legal).


Jesus Christ and you're fine with all that?! You do understand that that last bit is literally eugenics, right? That you're advocating for what was 100% legitimately one of the major backbones of the Nazi ideal?...


----------



## guicrith (Aug 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Jesus Christ and you're fine with all that?! You do understand that that last bit is literally eugenics, right? That you're advocating for what was 100% legitimately one of the major backbones of the Nazi ideal?...



I am not for the racial, religious or anti-gay aspect at all, the Nazis tainted eugenics and now everyone thinks its bad, yes I believe in eugenics but what I stated above isnt even eugenics.

Eugenics requires actively killing the defective, this would just be them dying of natural causes, In this case the individuals viability as a person decides whether they live or not, not an extermination task force, its much harder to abuse for political gain/blind hatred.

To be blinded by kindness is just as bad as being blinded by hatred.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 19, 2018)

guicrith said:


> I am not for the racial, religious or anti-gay aspect at all, the Nazis tainted eugenics and now everyone thinks its bad, yes I believe in eugenics but what I stated above isnt even eugenics.
> 
> Eugenics requires actively killing the defective, this would just be them dying of natural causes, In this case the individuals viability as a person decides whether they live or not, not an extermination task force, its much harder to abuse for political gain/blind hatred.
> 
> To be blinded by kindness is just as bad as being blinded by hatred.


I'm absolutely reeling, I've met people who definitely act like they want disabled people to die but I've never actually met somebody who just straight up admits it. Christ. Okay.

So just "how disabled" does someone have to be to revoke their right to not just be treated like a human being, but to fucking continue to live?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 19, 2018)

guicrith said:


> I am not for the racial, religious or anti-gay aspect at all, the Nazis tainted eugenics and now everyone thinks its bad, yes I believe in eugenics but what I stated above isnt even eugenics.
> 
> Eugenics requires actively killing the defective, this would just be them dying of natural causes, In this case the individuals viability as a person decides whether they live or not, not an extermination task force, its much harder to abuse for political gain/blind hatred.
> 
> To be blinded by kindness is just as bad as being blinded by hatred.



Actively not helping those who need help when there's plenty of resources to do so, so they die is literally the same as just going for the kill outright.
Does your bullshit apply when someone breaks their legs?
What about general sickness? If they can't get out of bed to make food for themselves, is that meant to be a death sentence?

Some could argue that your way of looking at life and society is so far removed from reality, it could only qualiy as entirely defective. and by your reasoning, we shouldn't keep defective in the gene pool so... I dunno, I'm sure there's a suitable window nearby.


----------



## guicrith (Aug 19, 2018)

If food, water and shelter were provided could you survive on your own for a month?
If yes you should be treated like a normal human, if no you are defective and a burden, many disabilitys cant be fixed but the person can live normally, obviously the colorblind shouldnt be killed just because they are different.

Different doesnt mean defective, diversity brings resilience.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 19, 2018)

guicrith said:


> If food, water and shelter were provided could you survive on your own for a month?


That's socialism babe!


----------



## guicrith (Aug 19, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> Actively not helping those who need help when there's plenty of resources to do so, so they die is literally the same as just going for the kill outright.
> Does your bullshit apply when someone breaks their legs?
> What about general sickness? If they can't get out of bed to make food for themselves, is that meant to be a death sentence?
> 
> Some could argue that your way of looking at life and society is so far removed from reality, it could only qualiy as entirely defective. and by your reasoning, we shouldn't keep defective in the gene pool so... I dunno, I'm sure there's a suitable window nearby.



If its temporary, no, thats what medicine is for.

As for the "thats socialism", I said I was for communism already?
If someone cant think(brain dead or retarded), they are not a person and thus communism doesnt apply in that case.
Greed and the glorification of the rich is far worse than any disability at the moment.(Just look at how Elon Musk behaves and is glorified, along with Steve Jobs)


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 19, 2018)

Well, according to the compass, I'm:






A centrist leaning towards Libertarian.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

But these tests might not be that precise, I would have liked to answer "neutral" in some questions.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 19, 2018)

What's the political spectrum position for "subscribing to labels like religious doctrines is dumb and the culture war is extremely dumb?"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



McWhiters9511 said:


> i fall into the category of wanting what’s right. the fact people choose what they believe solely because they’re part of a party and are limited to that parties so called beliefs is half the reason politics is getting nowhere except pissing people off.


This 100%.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 19, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> why not? that's exactly what your forefathers did.


Laws should be enforced, otherwise there would be chaos, but aside from "it's the law" I don't think I've ever heard a legit argument. Some of these people are bad and some good. Same with every group of humans ever.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Because the "middle" is directly controlled by how far whichever side can pull the spectrum to their own extreme. This is an incredibly extreme example, but when the far end of one side is saying "hey we should cleanse an entire subset of the population because we're racially superior" and the far end of the other side is saying "how about we DON'T kill people, and if you try to spread that ideology we will physically fight you," logically speaking the '''''middle''''' would be "hey, let's NOT fight those people, and as a compromise they only get to kill SOME people"
> 
> There are some stances where you CAN'T allow compromise on one side or the other, because one side quite literally is just wrong. And as Lilith said, when you take a middle ground stance on a topic where one side is objectively wrong and has the means to enact their stance in a way that will cause harm to their target population, then you're doing more to help them than you are their opposition



I get what you're saying, but I've always seen this stance used as an example, I've never seen it actually put in practice. True centrism is trying to find compromise for both sides, but in practice and execution, in your example most people who are against the killing would end up being very center. A more proper example based on current events would be more like

"White men are responsible for the systematic oppression of all non-whites, so we're justified in hating them!"

vs

"Non-whites have the lowest IQs, Paul Joseph Watson told me so! They're also responsible for aggression in society, so we should hate them!"

which from people like me, both sides garner the response of "you're both dumb, shut the hell up already"


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 19, 2018)

guicrith said:


> If food, water and shelter were provided could you survive on your own for a month?
> If yes you should be treated like a normal human, if no you are defective and a burden, many disabilitys cant be fixed but the person can live normally, obviously the colorblind shouldnt be killed just because they are different.
> 
> Different doesnt mean defective, diversity brings resilience.



Stop trying to wiggle your way out of this, you're obviously inhuman either by choice or nature and you're proud of it too. If there's anyone on this planet not deserving to be treated like a 'normal human' its you and those like you.


----------



## Pook and Pie (Aug 19, 2018)

I was a centrist leaning left, but now I'm basically a progressive liberal.

13 years ago I was a Republican who graduated from a Bible College, 5 years ago I was a centrist, and the current political climate has pushed me further and further left because, quite frankly, I do not feel represented by the current US administration or by most, if any, government official (loads of decisions being made do not have me and mine in mind in the slightest. Why is asbestos being used again when it doesn't benefit the US hardly at all? Why are steel mills, fab shops, etc., in my area closing due to the tariffs that were supposed to be an easy win? I have to ask these questions on almost a weekly basis- it's all absurd pushes toward short-term gains for groups who do not represent me. Why?). Hell, I don't feel represented by Christianity, as it is practiced by most in the US, nor their churches. I went through a pretty bad swing of complete faithlessness after graduating (long story short: Friend was raped, wasn't allowed an abortion and she was too young to sign papers or something on her own, and she killed herself when she suffered postpartum depression. So her parents have the grandchild they wanted but she literally said she could not look at that child and not see her attacker, and then ended her life. Completely changed my views on abortion and the church, as these were members of a church protecting a deacon over their daughter).

So now I'm a liberal practicing red letter Christianity. Christ said He's the new law- that's why eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc., don't apply any longer which He showed by turning the other cheek, etc.. I mention this because it also shaped my political views, because I don't recall Christ browbeating or berating homosexuals, etc., which is what most of the churches I've ever attended spend a substantial portion of their time doing, instead of actually being useful and functioning like a charity and fellowship as the first church by Peter did.

So yeah, liberal. Long, verbose explanation of why I shifted from Bible-thumping Republican to liberal.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 19, 2018)

guicrith said:


> (Just look at how Elon Musk behaves and is glorified, along with Steve Jobs)


I'm sorry, what's wrong with Elon Musk? Far as I know, all he has done is push the adoption of electric cars, help push space travel and technology in general.


----------



## tunip3 (Aug 19, 2018)

I am a communist


----------



## gman666 (Aug 19, 2018)

Honestly, I'm majority liberal with various conservative leanings. For example, though I think social services should be readily available to citizens, I also believe that these programs should have stricter approval and people should be held accountable for misusing funds or taking advantage of the system. I also believe in more efficient government agencies and the removal of redundancy. A federally funded agency/department shouldn't create new positions or spend unnecessarily just to avoid having their budget cut. I also believe that the government should offload most social services to private or non-profit agencies instead of providing funding for both infrastructure (rented buildings, construction, maintenance), and employment. However, I still believe that the government should still subsidize these services/programs. Overall, that's just a small sample of my personal opinion, but I'm more than willing to scrutinize liberal ideology and conservative ideology whenever possible. Also, I despise partisanship... Why the hell would you align/restrict yourself to a political platform rather than using your brain to make a calculated decision? Be critical of everything people! But base your critique on facts!


----------



## guicrith (Aug 19, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I'm sorry, what's wrong with Elon Musk? Far as I know, all he has done is push the adoption of electric cars, help push space travel and technology in general.


He called someone a pedophile for disliking his scientifically unsound rescue attempt:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...ave-rescue-diver-pedophile-twitter/786527002/

Also blames his behavior on Ambian like Roseanne:
https://bgr.com/2018/08/17/elon-musk-interview-with-nyt/

He is also a huge bragger and thinks saying "go to mars" out loud makes you a scientist.


----------



## gman666 (Aug 19, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I'm sorry, what's wrong with Elon Musk? Far as I know, all he has done is push the adoption of electric cars, help push space travel and technology in general.


He's also close to having his company (Tesla) downgraded by financial agencies and constantly blames everyone else for terrible leadership decisions. And he is close to having a lawsuit on his hands for potentially lying to his investors about taking Tesla private and potentially manipulating such information to undercut short sales. In all honesty, his recent actions are very manic. But that doesn't mean that his accomplishments aren't significant, maybe America will get that Space Force up and running.


----------



## HamBone41801 (Aug 19, 2018)

My entire family is pretty left leaning, however it has been pointed out that I am by far the most liberal of the bunch.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2018)

gman666 said:


> He's also close to having his company (Tesla) downgraded by financial agencies and constantly blames everyone else for terrible leadership decisions. And he is close to having a lawsuit on his hands for potentially lying to his investors about taking Tesla private and potentially manipulating such information to undercut short sales. In all honesty, his recent actions are very manic. But that doesn't mean that his accomplishments aren't significant, maybe America will get that Space Force up and running.


Not at all a fan of Musk's, but if we're being fair, people should read up on his father Errol Musk if they want to understand the reason behind some of his manic behavior.  That guy is a scumbag extraordinaire, to the point that he actually fathered a kid with one of his step daughters.  I'm sure he did a number on all his kids' minds.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Not at all a fan of Musk's, but if we're being fair, people should read up on his father Errol Musk if they want to understand the reason behind some of his manic behavior.  That guy is a scumbag extraordinaire, to the point that he actually fathered a kid with one of his step daughters.  I'm sure he did a number on all his kids' minds.


Doesn't excuse Elon's shitiness. But yeah, the entire Musk family is just really screwed up. Elon's stock is plummeting right now, so I hope the investors are moving their funds to other bright and innovative individuals that have a slightly smaller and more palatable ego


----------



## hii915 (Aug 19, 2018)




----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 20, 2018)

tunip3 said:


> I am a communist




And why not? Communist countries make the best video games.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 20, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I get what you're saying, but I've always seen this stance used as an example, I've never seen it actually put in practice. True centrism is trying to find compromise for both sides, but in practice and execution, in your example most people who are against the killing would end up being very center. A more proper example based on current events would be more like
> 
> "White men are responsible for the systematic oppression of all non-whites, so we're justified in hating them!"
> 
> ...


So I've been thinking about what you suggested vs what I said, and like... Yes, in a lot of situations, what you said is probably the best descriptor, as well as probably the most relatively harmless expressions of racism (while still expressing it) that either party could produce. But then I remember Black Lives Matter, and the entire chain of events that kicked it off, and how centrists latched onto the whole "BLM is a terrorist organization!" narrative due to the actions of a handful of people a handful of times, rather than really looking into the problem that continues to be modern police brutality targeted towards minorities today. In that scenario (and that covers a LOT of ground today), I'd absolutely say my example is the more appropriate one


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So I've been thinking about what you suggested vs what I said, and like... Yes, in a lot of situations, what you said is probably the best descriptor, as well as probably the most relatively harmless expressions of racism (while still expressing it) that either party could produce. But then I remember Black Lives Matter, and the entire chain of events that kicked it off, and how centrists latched onto the whole "BLM is a terrorist organization!" narrative due to the actions of a handful of people a handful of times, rather than really looking into the problem that continues to be modern police brutality targeted towards minorities today. In that scenario (and that covers a LOT of ground today), I'd absolutely say my example is the more appropriate one


I've not seen any centrists doing this. The only people I've seen with such a stance are hardcore conservatives or old grandpas who get their political views from stupid shit they see on facebook. What you are describing is not a centrist take. This is the take of someone who opposes BLM, which is, by definition, the opposite of centrism.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 20, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I've not seen any centrists doing this. The only people I've seen with such a stance are hardcore conservatives or old grandpas who get their political views from stupid shit they see on facebook. What you are describing is not a centrist take. This is the take of someone who opposes BLM, which is, by definition, the opposite of centrism.


Interesting. The situation might be different where you are, but here in Iowa I see a LOT of people who have stances along the lines of "well yeah the police obviously shouldn't be beating people up in general, but rioting and protesting like BLM isn't any better. (????) And by the way, why do 'black lives matter' more than anyone else?"

It's pretty disgusting, but then again Iowa is a super red state. So again, the center here is pulled much further right, especially in the middle-aged range


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Interesting. The situation might be different where you are, but here in Iowa I see a LOT of people who have stances along the lines of "well yeah the police obviously shouldn't be beating people up in general, but rioting and protesting like BLM isn't any better. (????) And by the way, why do 'black lives matter' more than anyone else?"
> 
> It's pretty disgusting, but then again Iowa is a super red state. So again, the center here is pulled much further right, especially in the middle-aged range


I think this represents the biggest issue with American politics: Labels are thrown around but the meaning is constantly misused. What may be center for America is probably like moderate left or right for everywhere else. I really hope we don't reach the point where people say shit like "Oh, I'm not a libertarian, I'm an American Centrist" or something.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 21, 2018)

anarchist i just want to watch  the world to burn for it's stupidity


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> I don't know what he said about sandy hook, I just don't think wishing for the death of a free (or even a convict perhaps) citizen is not the right attitude at all, in whatever circumstance.
> 
> edit: ok, now I know. It looks like he's a mental or something, which makes your post even worse. Would you wish a schizophreniac to die for something he said in his delusion? That's just fucked up.


First off you need to understand that every other word that comes out of Flame's mouth is sarcastic

But secondly you also need to know that defending Alex Jones will not put you on the right, or smart, side of history. This is the guy that after being temp-banned from Twitter this last week told his followers to stockpile guns and take action, I'm still waiting for the inevitable fallout of that comment


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 21, 2018)

you do realize that the approval rate from black communities is rising, yesterday it hit 37% i believe, and that was from a USA TODAY article. so if a left-wing news company is pushing that article out, it must be sorta true for your standards. I would've found something from fox news to prove you wrong, but then realized you don't think fox news is real anyway...

Listen, i'm a black american. My ancestors were here from the 1800s, and were slaves. Not once have I ever thought trump was hateful towards black people, or anyone of ANY race for that matter. Sure, he does have the attitude and insult-making as a teenager, but thats WHY HE WON. He won because most americans(including me) were tired of the same old "i'll do this", "i'll do that" and then they never actually do it. Trump has done most everything he promised to do. I didn't vote for him in the 2016 election because I was told by every news company under the sun he was a racist, he was hitler, he hated me because I was black. But black unemployment rates are at a all time low because of him. For that, I thank him. He may not be a good person with women, he's a billionaire, they're all like that. I don't like WHO HE IS, I like what he's doing for the country.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Aug 21, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> Trump has done most everything he promised to do.


what has trump done that he promised to do


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 21, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> This is a moderator, folks. We're facing the same insane liberal moderation problems as of Reddit and other social media. This person is insane and murderous, I'm not even quoting the message because I sincerely hope this gets deleted and he gets banned. I've already reported.
> 
> Edit: apparently the report was rejected because it was "sarcasm". Please consider Poe's law and at least have a little bit of decency to make this clear.


Let's not act like Jones is a helpless victim here. Jones has outright called for violence on numerous occasions, has denied shootings numerous times with no regard of the emotional state of the families who lost their loved ones, and most importantly, releases shittons of intentionally falsified information to rile people up and further divide the country further.

While I agree that people shouldn't be killed for saying stupid shit, I do also agree that Alex Jones (and infowars as a whole, especially disingenuous nutjobs like Paul Joseph Watson) needs to be deplatformed immediately, along with any other platform that partakes in his level of bullshit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Eastonator12 said:


> you do realize that the approval rate from black communities is rising, yesterday it hit 37% i believe, and that was from a USA TODAY article. so if a left-wing news company is pushing that article out, it must be sorta true for your standards. I would've found something from fox news to prove you wrong, but then realized you don't think fox news is real anyway...


Why do people assume that someone would believe USA Today solely because it's a "left-wing" establishment? Does this line of reasoning come from the fact most people don't take shitholes like Breitbart, Fox News, and Infowars as credible sources of information?


----------



## kevin corms (Aug 21, 2018)

Well neither side actually uses much common sense, so Im just sad.


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 21, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Let's not act like Jones is a helpless victim here. Jones has outright called for violence on numerous occasions, has denied shootings numerous times with no regard of the emotional state of the families who lost their loved ones, and most importantly, releases shittons of intentionally falsified information to rile people up and further divide the country further.
> 
> While I agree that people shouldn't be killed for saying stupid shit, I do also agree that Alex Jones (and infowars as a whole, especially disingenuous nutjobs like Paul Joseph Watson) needs to be deplatformed immediately, along with any other platform that partakes in his level of bullshit.
> 
> ...


well, they don't believe fox news because its "propaganda", and CNN doesn't cover it. USA TODAY is the only thing I could find. And I mention its left-wing because so is CNN.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Darth Meteos said:


> what has trump done that he promised to do


lower taxes, create more jobs, lower unemployment(same thing kinda)...immigration reform, healthcare reform. he's done all of these things.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 21, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> you do realize that the approval rate from black communities is rising, yesterday it hit 37% i believe, and that was from a USA TODAY article. so if a left-wing news company is pushing that article out, it must be sorta true for your standards. I would've found something from fox news to prove you wrong, but then realized you don't think fox news is real anyway...
> 
> Listen, i'm a black american. My ancestors were here from the 1800s, and were slaves. Not once have I ever thought trump was hateful towards black people, or anyone of ANY race for that matter. Sure, he does have the attitude and insult-making as a teenager, but thats WHY HE WON. He won because most americans(including me) were tired of the same old "i'll do this", "i'll do that" and then they never actually do it. Trump has done most everything he promised to do. I didn't vote for him in the 2016 election because I was told by every news company under the sun he was a racist, he was hitler, he hated me because I was black. But black unemployment rates are at a all time low because of him. For that, I thank him. He may not be a good person with women, he's a billionaire, they're all like that. I don't like WHO HE IS, I like what he's doing for the country.


Could you link that article? Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd like to see it in print. Plus... 37% still isn't exactly a number to be proud of, especially for the guy that won by getting the second highest number of votes

Also, something you need to understand is that unemployment has been on a decline for years, so every year for the last few has been "an all time low." The issue with Trump's statistic is that the GROWTH RATE is far lower than previous years, which means that while unemployment is going down and jobs are being created, it's at a far lower point than it has been in 6 years, which _will not_ be sustainable until something different is done about it


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Could you link that article? Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd like to see it in print. Plus... 37% still isn't exactly a number to be proud of, especially for the guy that won by getting the second highest number of votes
> 
> Also, something you need to understand is that unemployment has been on a decline for years, so every year for the last few has been "an all time low." The issue with Trump's statistic is that the GROWTH RATE is far lower than previous years, which means that while unemployment is going down and jobs are being created, it's at a far lower point than it has been in 6 years, which _will not_ be sustainable until something different is done about it


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/ 

I mean, 37% approval from the black community is good, it means they're waking up. Especially for a republican guy, thats a huge amount of support


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 21, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/
> 
> I mean, 37% approval from the black community is good, it means they're waking up. Especially for a republican guy, thats a huge amount of support





> Trump frequently cites Rasmussenpolls because they consistently show him with a higher approval rating than other polling organizations. For example, the Real Clear Politics averagecurrently has Trump at 43 percent approval. But today's tracking poll from Rasmussen has the president at 49 percent. And while Trump has never topped 46 percent on the RCP average, Rasmussen has shown Trump with approval ratings as high as 59 percent.





> An NAACP poll released on Aug. 7found that Trump's approval rating was at 21 percent. And a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in Junefound Trump's approval rating among blacks at 14 percent.


And that's why I asked


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And that's why I asked


hot damn, I honestly knew this was coming
I honestly don't see why "people support trump" is something to tout around. It doesn't mean people are "waking up," it just means they support Trump.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 21, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> lower taxes, create more jobs, lower unemployment(same thing kinda)...immigration reform, healthcare reform. he's done all of these things.





Sure, if that's what you'd like to believe.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 21, 2018)

Flame said:


> so you think what Alex Jones said about sandy hook is right?
> 
> and one of the parents had to move 7 times cause of Alex Jones around USA cause his followers was keep following the poor parents.


I don't think he's right, but that doesn't justify silencing him. Everyone has a right to express their opinion (which *does *include denying mass murders). Not only that, by silencing him you're only fueling his conspiracies.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 21, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> I don't think he's right, but that doesn't justify silencing him. Everyone has a right to express their opinion (which *does *include denying mass murders). Not only that, by silencing him you're only fueling his conspiracies.


Libel and slander aren't legally protected forms of free speech, though. He's saying the parents of these children are paid actors and conspirators and also claiming several people are pedophiles and rapists. Opinions are one thing, this is something else.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 21, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> Libel and slander aren't legally protected forms of free speech, though. He's saying the parents of these children are paid actors and conspirators and also claiming several people are pedophiles and rapists. Opinions are one thing, this is something else.


The question is: Are those claims unprovable?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 21, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> The question is: Are those claims unprovable?


... Did you really just ask that question


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 21, 2018)

@dAVID_

for the love of...no just no.

You have to prove ALL the  evidence is false.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 22, 2018)

Burden of proof falls upon the accuser. He's presented nothing substantial.


----------



## guicrith (Aug 22, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> The question is: Are those claims unprovable?


Sadly by modern logic all claims are now unprovable because the other side will simply claim its propaganda and call it "fake news".
You could actually claim that earth is giant sleeping roly poly bug and some crazys would pick up the idea and run with it, any attempts to disprove it would be "fake news" and anyone who dident believe them would simply be "brainwashed" or "government agents".

Look at Scientology leaks, flat earth theory and climate denial, people still believe those!


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 22, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> The mods here won't even allow me to allude to or hint at my position without loading my profile up with warnings or suspending me for a week again, so I really couldn't tell you.


I know what your views are and I know you aren't some innocent and oppressed person.


----------



## HamBone41801 (Aug 22, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I know what your views are and I know you aren't some innocent and oppressed person.


was he the eugenics dude?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> was he the eugenics dude?


He's the "Jews are everything that is wrong with the world" guy


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 22, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> was he the eugenics dude?


No, but one could say that's part of his politics


----------



## HamBone41801 (Aug 22, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He's the "Jews are everything that is wrong with the world" guy


I find it fascinating that people can be driven to such a stupid belief by absolutely anything.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@guicrith You really shouldn't be liking that, because it turns out YOU were the eugenics guy. You're just as bad as him.


----------



## guicrith (Aug 22, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> I find it fascinating that people can be driven to such a stupid belief by absolutely anything.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> @guicrith You really shouldn't be liking that, because it turns out YOU were the eugenics guy. You're just as bad as him.



I dont think cripples are the only issue with the world, they are an issue, but far from the worst.

If I got power, the first thing I would do would be to insure the preservation of data and prevent any copyright action in my country, next would be free education(including equal access to the internet for all citizens) then reducing carbon output(eugenics is here).

They are not my scapegoat, they are just a waste of the carbon quota.


----------



## HamBone41801 (Aug 22, 2018)

guicrith said:


> I dont think cripples are the only issue with the world, they are an issue, but far from the worst.
> 
> If I got power, the first thing I would do would be to insure the preservation of data and prevent any copyright action in my country, next would be free education(including equal access to the internet for all citizens) then reducing carbon output(eugenics is here).
> 
> They are not my scapegoat, they are just a waste of the carbon quota.


Jesus Christ.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 22, 2018)

Thankfully a wacko like you would never have any power.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 22, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> The question is: Are those claims unprovable?


Yes, because not only do his claims have no evidence to back them up (and no, looking at IMDB pages or finding similar looking people in photos is not evidence) but they're hairbrained schemes.

Furthermore, why do you take him seriously? You know he has, under oath of law in front of a jury, outright stated that he plays a character on InfoWars and does not believe in his conspiracy theories?


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 22, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Thankfully a wacko like you would never have any power.


Idk, it's happened before.


----------



## bitjacker (Aug 22, 2018)

Anarchist.
I think a perfect government would be a group of people who flat out kill anyone who tries to take power over other people or exploit them. But they themselves would not be considered to be in power (until you fuck someone over). If everyone knew the consequence, it wouldn't be a bad deal at all. Human life is afforded too many protections.


----------



## kevin corms (Aug 22, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> well, they don't believe fox news because its "propaganda", and CNN doesn't cover it. USA TODAY is the only thing I could find. And I mention its left-wing because so is CNN.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I think he gets way too much credit, he spends most of his time tweeting and playing golf. Its a good thing the government will run without him. there are also a ton of people who know what they are doing around him, he seems to just pick a differnt one to listen to anytime he feels like doing work. Sometimes he listens to the wrong person, then he fires them lol.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

kevin corms said:


> I think he gets way too much credit, he spends most of his time tweeting and playing golf. Its a good thing the government will run without him. there are also a ton of people who know what they are doing around him, he seems to just pick a differnt one to listen to anytime he feels like doing work. Sometimes he listens to the wrong person, then he fires them lol.


If he would just let the government run without him we'd objectively be in a much better place economically right now


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 22, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> I find it fascinating that people can be driven to such a stupid belief by absolutely anything.


This is why I feel that even if religion was wiped off the face of the Earth, as some people want, something else would fill their place.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 22, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I've always been a rather mixed bag of believes, although I am a rather Left Liberal who leans rather heavily towards Communism. I also tend to gravitate towards Progressivism. I don't really cling to one political idea, but I tend to be rather against what a lot of Modern Conservatives are for.


Same


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 22, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm absolutely reeling, I've met people who definitely act like they want disabled people to die but I've never actually met somebody who just straight up admits it. Christ. Okay.
> 
> So just "how disabled" does someone have to be to revoke their right to not just be treated like a human being, but to fucking continue to live?





Clydefrosch said:


> Actively not helping those who need help when there's plenty of resources to do so, so they die is literally the same as just going for the kill outright.
> Does your bullshit apply when someone breaks their legs?
> What about general sickness? If they can't get out of bed to make food for themselves, is that meant to be a death sentence?
> 
> Some could argue that your way of looking at life and society is so far removed from reality, it could only qualiy as entirely defective. and by your reasoning, we shouldn't keep defective in the gene pool so... I dunno, I'm sure there's a suitable window nearby.





Clydefrosch said:


> Stop trying to wiggle your way out of this, you're obviously inhuman either by choice or nature and you're proud of it too. If there's anyone on this planet not deserving to be treated like a 'normal human' its you and those like you.





JellyPerson said:


> You're a fucking monster.





Eastonator12 said:


> you're right, that guy is fucking insane





JellyPerson said:


> Why or how do people like that even exist? It's like he's fucked in the head.


I don't agree with eugenics, but let's play with the idea for a second because you guys are getting pretty rude for an opinion that I don't think is all that offensive. Eugenics is basically controlling breeding and life of human beings for the purpose of improving humans with desirable traits.

If you take "human" out of that definition you have natural selection. Nature has been doing this since the dawn of life. Even more importantly it has been, and continues to do this to humans. Humans already have, and continue do this to other life. We breed animals and plants for the purpose of desired traits all the time. Without humans there would be no cows.

Another way to look at it, as we've made medical advances making life expectancy much longer for everyone across all sexes, races, conditions, there has been an increase in occurrences of cancer, genetic disorders, mental disorders, etc. So one could argue that increasing life expectancy and open breeding is harmful to the human race.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 22, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> I don't agree with eugenics, but let's play with the idea for a second because you guys are getting pretty rude for an opinion that I don't think is all that offensive. Eugenics is basically controlling breeding and life of human beings for the purpose of improving humans with desirable traits.


Though it's nice to talk about it like it would happen in a vacuum and everybody would see benefits, the reality is that even if we perfected the technology, eugenics would be ridiculously expensive.  Just another privilege for the rich to enjoy while the rest of us do without.  Essentially we'd be manufacturing "perfect" humans to rule over the rest of us wretched beings who are subject to the genetic lottery.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 22, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Another way to look at it, as we've made medical advances making life expectancy much longer for everyone across all sexes, races, conditions, there has been an increase in occurrences of cancer, genetic disorders, mental disorders, etc. So one could argue that increasing life expectancy and open breeding is harmful to the human race.









People being alive longer, and more people being alive means you're going to notice more of these occurrences happening. It does not mean they are related. Furthermore, increasing life expectancy, health, and lowering the mortality rate is a good thing. People with disabilities, or people with a history of them in their families should have the right to live, rather than have that right taken from them because some nerd thinks they should be. Eugenics is an awful idea, full stop. Natural selection is not comparable, because it is not something decided by a being, it is decided by a force. Taking the human input out of eugenics doesn't suddenly make it natural selection. If anything, removing human intervention would make natural selection become a force of eugenics itself. Not only is your reasoning flawed, but eugenics as a whole is flawed to begin with. It is absolutely not the right of any one man, or group of men to determine if others have the right to live just because of their genetics. 

So yeah, frankly? I think calling someone a, quote, "fucking monster" for advocating the extermination of those they deem unfit, or to abandon them and let them suffer alone (which is arguably more cruel than just outright exterminating them) is more than justified. As I'm sure you're well aware, I have plenty more fitting words for someone with such stances. There's a line between judging the state of someone's life, then making a decision based on mercy because of that, and the edgy as fuck stance of "lol fuck them bro just like survive and shit." Especially when those completely capable of survival will be squandered by events out of their control in society.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Though it's nice to talk about it like it would happen in a vacuum and everybody would see benefits, the reality is that even if we perfected the technology, eugenics would be ridiculously expensive.  Just another privilege for the rich to enjoy while the rest of us do without.  Essentially we'd be manufacturing "perfect" humans to rule over the rest of us wretched beings who are subject to the genetic lottery.


This too. "perfect humans" would just lead to awful classism, which we really don't need more of.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 22, 2018)

Well, I do think something like transhumanism will happen, but it will be by choice.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Well, I do think something like transhumanism will happen, but it will be by choice.


Honestly, it's happening now. Transgenderism fits the bill for transhumanism, for example. It just hasn't reached the Human Revolution levels of development. I honestly hope it doesn't, because the recent Defcon thing proved that shit would be way too easy to exploit.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 22, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> because the recent Defcon thing proved that shit would be way too easy to exploit.


Now I'm curious. What Defcon thing are you speaking of specifically?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Now I'm curious. What Defcon thing are you speaking of specifically?


https://www.wired.com/story/pacemaker-hack-malware-black-hat/


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 22, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Though it's nice to talk about it like it would happen in a vacuum and everybody would see benefits, the reality is that even if we perfected the technology, eugenics would be ridiculously expensive.  Just another privilege for the rich to enjoy while the rest of us do without.  Essentially we'd be manufacturing "perfect" humans to rule over the rest of us wretched beings who are subject to the genetic lottery.


Sounds a lot like gattica


MaverickWellington said:


> People being alive longer, and more people being alive means you're going to notice more of these occurrences happening. It does not mean they are related.


That's exactly what that means.


MaverickWellington said:


> People with disabilities, or people with a history of them in their families should have the right to live, rather than have that right taken from them because some nerd thinks they should be.


I agree


MaverickWellington said:


> Natural selection is not comparable, because it is not something decided by a being, it is decided by a force. Taking the human input out of eugenics doesn't suddenly make it natural selection. If anything, removing human intervention would make natural selection become a force of eugenics itself.


I fail to see the difference. Natural selection in its natural state is a form of eugenics. What your saying is redundant.


MaverickWellington said:


> So yeah, frankly? I think calling someone a, quote, "fucking monster" for advocating the extermination of those they deem unfit, or to abandon them and let them suffer alone (which is arguably more cruel than just outright exterminating them) is more than justified.


He wasn't advocating extermination. That's genocide. Eugenics at its core is controlled breeding. I'm not on the side of eugenics. I'm just asking that people remember to respect others, and that there is no harm in playing with an idea that you don't personally agree with. If only for the sake of debate.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> People being alive longer, and more people being alive means you're going to notice more of these occurrences happening. It does not mean they are related. Furthermore, increasing life expectancy, health, and lowering the mortality rate is a good thing. People with disabilities, or people with a history of them in their families should have the right to live, rather than have that right taken from them because some nerd thinks they should be. Eugenics is an awful idea, full stop. Natural selection is not comparable, because it is not something decided by a being, it is decided by a force. Taking the human input out of eugenics doesn't suddenly make it natural selection. If anything, removing human intervention would make natural selection become a force of eugenics itself. Not only is your reasoning flawed, but eugenics as a whole is flawed to begin with. It is absolutely not the right of any one man, or group of men to determine if others have the right to live just because of their genetics.
> 
> So yeah, frankly? I think calling someone a, quote, "fucking monster" for advocating the extermination of those they deem unfit, or to abandon them and let them suffer alone (which is arguably more cruel than just outright exterminating them) is more than justified. As I'm sure you're well aware, I have plenty more fitting words for someone with such stances. There's a line between judging the state of someone's life, then making a decision based on mercy because of that, and the edgy as fuck stance of "lol fuck them bro just like survive and shit." Especially when those completely capable of survival will be squandered by events out of their control in society.
> 
> ...


Thank you for putting into words what I didn't have time to at the moment, although I'll add:

I'm obviously all for the betterment of human life in general, but the second someone advocates for a genetic alteration without the recipient's consent, or as, God forbid was said here, some variation of advocating for the death of a person because they see them as a "useless eater" due to the simple fact that they can't do conventional labor, I do believe that we've hit territory where it's fair to call said person a monster

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> He wasn't advocating extermination. That's genocide. Eugenics at its core is controlled breeding. I'm not on the side of eugenics. I'm just asking that people remember to respect others, and that there is no harm in playing with an idea that you don't personally agree with. If only for the sake of debate.


He specifically said that he wanted to pull medical assistance from people who can't take care of themselves on their own and leave them to die. I don't know in what universe that ISN'T considered extermination


----------



## Xzi (Aug 22, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Sounds a lot like gattica


Pretty much.  That's the (justified) fear anyway, and the reason there's a lot of stigma behind discussing eugenics.  That, and the Nazis.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 22, 2018)

There is a lot more than just "controlled breeding" to, and I directly quote, "if you cannot survive with shelter, food, and water provided to you you are a waste of resources and defective."

You fail to see the difference because you aren't looking. One has conscious control, the other doesn't. It's completely different for this reason.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

To further clarify, one can consciously set up what standards and tests something will encounter for the sake of creating a desirable result. Without the human aspect, natural selection just happens. You can chalk it up to luck if you want, but it is not intentionally subjecting people to tests of natural ability or suitability, so it's incomparable. 

I don't think kindness should be reserved for unkind beliefs. There's better ways to better mankind than to falsely pretend eugenics has merit to it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Thank you for putting into words what I didn't have time to at the moment, although I'll add:
> 
> I'm obviously all for the betterment of human life in general, but the second someone advocates for a genetic alteration without the recipient's consent, or as, God forbid was said here, some variation of advocating for the death of a person because they see them as a "useless eater" due to the simple fact that they can't do conventional labor, I do believe that we've hit territory where it's fair to call said person a monster
> 
> ...


Yeah, like I said, just leaving them to die like that is arguably more cruel than extinction, because they're just sitting there suffering. To refuse to help people you have the resources to help solely because you see them as a burden, even in situations where their burden isn't even a strain on resources, is absolutely amoral. So yeah, like I said, calling it out as such is totally justified and disrespectful ideas should not be treated with the basic respect they refuse to see other humans with.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 22, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> https://www.wired.com/story/pacemaker-hack-malware-black-hat/


All that proves to me, is that we shouldn't be lax on security. That, and we shouldn't have such intimate life extending tech connected to the internet.

New technology is going to happen, so all we can do and hope for is ethical usage and design, and stronger security. 



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm obviously all for the betterment of human life in general, but the second someone advocates for a genetic alteration without the recipient's consent,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby


That's a bit of a gray area morally, but I do believe that generally speaking it falls under "lack of consent" in regards to my statement, since the baby being designed has no say in a decision that quite literally will affect it its entire life


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 22, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's a bit of a gray area morally, but I do believe that generally speaking it falls under "lack of consent" in regards to my statement, since the baby being designed has no say in a decision that quite literally will affect it its entire life


What if it were used as a sort of genetic vaccine? Removing traits such as a disposition to cancer, autism, physical deformities..


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> What if it were used as a sort of genetic vaccine? Removing traits such as a disposition to cancer, autism, physical deformities..


Hence why I said it's a gray area. I have nothing against that, and in general I'm really excited about CRISPR and the benefits it stands to offer to humanity. If it were within my power, though, I'd refuse to even consider allowing genetic modification in utero in order to alter physical and personal traits of the child


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 22, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> What if it were used as a sort of genetic vaccine? Removing traits such as a disposition to cancer, autism, physical deformities..


Not everyone takes vaccines. At least for now, you have a choice.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Not everyone takes vaccines. At least for now, you have a choice.


That's one thing people shouldn't have a choice on. People who physically can't have vaccines, for whatever reason, rely on herd immunity to stay healthy. The fewer people accept vaccinations, the more potential carriers there are for preventable diseases, which means a higher potential mortality rate for people with weakened immune systems


----------



## Barrowsx (Aug 22, 2018)

Oh boy, these threads are always fun.







According to https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html, I'm pretty definitively a Libertarian, although if you had asked me 6 years ago I'd probably say Liberal/Progressive.

I guess I'm just one of those ex-liberals that has started feeling that the modern Liberal parties are starting to veer way too far left, and it certainly doesn't help that many media outlets are liberally biased. I feel as if we're reaching a point where people want progress for the sake of progress, rather than trying to consider whether it's actually necessary.

Of course, that's not the only thing that's made me move closer to the center/center-right/libertarian/wherever the fuck I am; the far-left seems very eager to call anyone a racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe/*phobe for having any opinion to the right of Socialism and total open borders. Hell, it's gotten to the point where I don't bother saying things in most forums because I know for a fact people will discard my opinion on the basis of my white skin, but then turn around and say it isn't racist because "you can't be racist against white people," as if that somehow makes any sense at all. Even the treatment of non-white conservatives or libertarians is pretty abhorrent, where if a black person or a hispanic person states an opinion that goes against the left-wing interpretation, they're called "Uncle Toms" or "Not real black people," again, as if that makes sense somehow.

Of course, I feel that a lot of this transformation is due to me growing up and having to make my own life, and needing to worry about myself first and foremost for the first time in my life. Add in that I dropped out of college after one semester, and you can see how I've started to drift away from the left and more towards libertarian/conservatism.

*TL;DR: Economically conservative, socially libertarian (mostly). If the #WalkAway movement happened in 2016, I'd almost certainly have been a part of it.*


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 22, 2018)

Barrowsx said:


> If the #WalkAway movement happened in 2016, I'd almost certainly have been a part of it


Everything else aside, this is such a manufactured "movement". Next you will be telling us you joined the QAnon.


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 22, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> I don't agree with eugenics, but let's play with the idea for a second because you guys are getting pretty rude for an opinion that I don't think is all that offensive. Eugenics is basically controlling breeding and life of human beings for the purpose of improving humans with desirable traits.
> 
> If you take "human" out of that definition you have natural selection. Nature has been doing this since the dawn of life. Even more importantly it has been, and continues to do this to humans. Humans already have, and continue do this to other life. We breed animals and plants for the purpose of desired traits all the time. Without humans there would be no cows.
> 
> Another way to look at it, as we've made medical advances making life expectancy much longer for everyone across all sexes, races, conditions, there has been an increase in occurrences of cancer, genetic disorders, mental disorders, etc. So one could argue that increasing life expectancy and open breeding is harmful to the human race.


well sure yeah. Only the strongest survive. I know how evolution works. But this guy was mad that disabled people got to exist as if he was actually superior to them. Which in some cases, normal people are more capable and well, superior to disabled people. But this kid didn't like that they got to exist, thats the problem i had


----------



## Issac (Aug 22, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> The mods here won't even allow me to allude to or hint at my position without loading my profile up with warnings or suspending me for a week again, so I really couldn't tell you.


Get over yourself.
You were warned for a racist remark back in 2010, and that warning expired. Then you were warned in 2016 for telling another user (contributor) to eat a dick out of the blue. That also expired.
So now you have one warning point at the moment, and I was the one giving it to you (and yeah, I probably gave you a 1 week suspension for it). Why? Because you posted neo-nazi stuff... and yes I deleted that comment as well.

You can hint at your position, hell you can even say it right out and we won't care. Everyone is right to have their opinion and beliefs!


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 22, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> I don't agree with eugenics, but let's play with the idea for a second because you guys are getting pretty rude for an opinion that I don't think is all that offensive. Eugenics is basically controlling breeding and life of human beings for the purpose of improving humans with desirable traits.
> 
> If you take "human" out of that definition you have natural selection. Nature has been doing this since the dawn of life. Even more importantly it has been, and continues to do this to humans. Humans already have, and continue do this to other life. We breed animals and plants for the purpose of desired traits all the time. Without humans there would be no cows.
> 
> Another way to look at it, as we've made medical advances making life expectancy much longer for everyone across all sexes, races, conditions, there has been an increase in occurrences of cancer, genetic disorders, mental disorders, etc. So one could argue that increasing life expectancy and open breeding is harmful to the human race.


You get that, once we learned to walk upright, speak and said fuck you to our evolutionary flaws by using tools and medicine, we rose ourself above natural selection. What we do to other life matters little, as we haven't agreed to grant every organism human rights. Though when humans do to animals is horrible if you ask me.

As for cancer, yeah, that happens when you raise overall age. Longer life means more chances for rare diseases to develop. Seriously, one could argue that by eugenicist standards, youd be stupid enough to have it applied to you.


-snip-


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

Barrowsx said:


> Of course, that's not the only thing that's made me move closer to the center/center-right/libertarian/wherever the fuck I am; the far-left seems very eager to call anyone a racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe/*phobe for having any opinion to the right of Socialism and total open borders.


I know this doesn't work for every case, but generally speaking if someone calls you a [racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe/*phobe] it's generally because you're being [racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/*phobic] and its making them uncomfortable. Under such situations, it's usually wiser to ask what it is you're doing that's upsetting them and if there's anything you can do to avoid such behavior next time, because that's just how basic human decency works.
(Now note, this does not necessarily MAKE you a [racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe/*phobe], you can act like something without consistently being something. The above still applies, arguably more so, in that situation, though, because if that's the case I'd want to learn what the offending behavior is and correct it)

You mention that your opinion is being disregarded solely because of the color of your skin, but fail to acknowledge that your skin color has put you in a position where you virtually never see the same kind of harassment or microaggressions as the people accusing you. Rather than getting hostile about it, maybe you should listen to _their _opinions on the matter to see if maybe there IS something you can alter for the benefit of both parties involved


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Aug 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Everything else aside, this is such a manufactured "movement". Next you will be telling us you joined the QAnon.


Manufactured, not even in the US, no less


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> Manufactured, not even in the US, no less


*Sad tuba noises*


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 22, 2018)

Issac said:


> Get over yourself.
> You were warned for a racist remark back in 2010, and that warning expired. Then you were warned in 2016 for telling another user (contributor) to eat a dick out of the blue. That also expired.
> So now you have one warning point at the moment, and I was the one giving it to you (and yeah, I probably gave you a 1 week suspension for it). Why? Because you posted neo-nazi stuff... and yes I deleted that comment as well.
> 
> You can hint at your position, hell you can even say it right out and we won't care. Everyone is right to have their opinion and beliefs!


Hate to be that guy, but didn't you just contradict yourself? Just looking for clarity.

Like if my position was neo-nazism (it isn't) would it be deleted?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 22, 2018)

Barrowsx said:


> I feel as if we're reaching a point where people want progress for the sake of progress, rather than trying to consider whether it's actually necessary.


You'd have to elaborate on this one.  If the rest of the world progresses and the US stays stagnant, we fall as a nation.  Nobody's gonna wait for us to catch up, we'd simply tumble further in the ranks of education, social equality, wage equality, renewable energy, healthcare costs, etc.  The past is dead and gone, and the US can't retreat from the world stage back into regressive isolation just because a few neocons are having "economic anxiety."  All we're doing with those types of policies is speeding ourselves toward the next crash regardless.


----------



## Issac (Aug 22, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Hate to be that guy, but didn't you just contradict yourself? Just looking for clarity.
> 
> Like if my position was neo-nazism (it isn't) would it be deleted?


Did I say anything contradicting? If so I apologize, but that isn't what I meant in that case.

If you say "I'm Neo-Nazi" there is nothing I can (or want to) do about it. You have the right to be that if you want.
If you say "kill all jews" I'd remove it and give you a warning. There's a clear difference.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

Issac said:


> Did I say anything contradicting? If so I apologize, but that isn't what I meant in that case.
> 
> If you say "I'm Neo-Nazi" there is nothing I can (or want to) do about it. You have the right to be that if you want.
> If you say "kill all jews" I'd remove it and give you a warning. There's a clear difference.


For what it's worth, thank you (and the entire site staff) for not giving the extremest beliefs a platform to spread


----------



## Barrowsx (Aug 22, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You mention that your opinion is being disregarded solely because of the color of your skin, but fail to acknowledge that your skin color has put you in a position where you virtually never see the same kind of harassment or microaggressions as the people accusing you. Rather than getting hostile about it, maybe you should listen to _their _opinions on the matter to see if maybe there IS something you can alter for the benefit of both parties involved



Hard disagree here. This may have been true 60 years ago, but not in today's society. I can't expect anything to be given to me or taken from me based solely on my immutable characteristics (skin color, eye color, etc.), which is the way it should be.

Any privilege I have in life are due to my parents working as hard as they possibly could throughout their life in order to advance in their respective careers, and they didn't come from places of privilege either; my mother was raised by her grandparents in rural Louisiana when her mother left when she was 3 years old, and my father was raised in a low income part of Camden, NJ, and left home at 16 when his mother couldn't support him anymore. Of course, this isn't to say that nobody else has possibly had a harder life than they did, but I find it somewhat insulting to imply that any advantages I had in life are simply due to my skin color, and not because my parents worked their asses off so that they could give their future selves and their children a better life than they had growing up.

I feel like I worded my original post a little too harshly, although I suppose that's what happens when you stay up until the wee hours of the night. The interactions I mentioned in my initial post aren't the norm, but I'm finding them more and more commonplace in my social media feeds, along with places such as Reddit. 



Xzi said:


> You'd have to elaborate on this one.  If the rest of the world progresses and the US stays stagnant, we fall as a nation.  Nobody's gonna wait for us to catch up, we'd simply tumble further in the ranks of education, social equality, wage equality, renewable energy, healthcare costs, etc.  The past is dead and gone, and the US can't retreat from the world stage back into regressive isolation just because a few neocons are having "economic anxiety."  All we're doing with those types of policies is speeding ourselves toward the next crash regardless.



The U.S. is still firmly in position as the largest world economic center, and I feel that this position is taken for granted very often, particularly by our friends in Europe. The primary reason that many European countries can have great social programs is because they don't need to spend nearly as much on defense or medical research, since the U.S. takes the brunt of that. If the U.S. were to switch to a full socialized/single-payer healthcare system, it would be absolutely disastrous for the average citizen, since healthcare is nearly 18% of the U.S.'s GDP (about $3.3 trillion, about $10,000 per person or $25,400 per household). This amount of spending is more than the entire GDP of every other country except for China, Japan, and Germany.

As for wage inequality, women make less than men _on average_. As in, if you take the average of every man's income and compare it to every woman's income, women make less than men. This is due to women tending to make different career choices than men, with the average male tending to gravitate towards STEM related fields and the average woman gravitating towards more arts-oriented fields. When you compare salaries in the same field, women make, for all intents and purposes, the same amount of money as a man in the same job, with slight deviations depending on individual situations. 

Obviously, the U.S. isn't a perfect paradise. Particularly, our public education system is absolute dogshit thanks to No Child Left Behind and the advent of standardized multiple-choice tests being used as a gauge for school funding, and our dependence on coal and fossil fuels should be better, with coal needing to be replaced by nuclear energy and fossil fuels needing to be replaced (mostly) by electric vehicles, but many of these issues are incredibly complicated and are being vastly oversimplified.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 22, 2018)

Barrowsx said:


> If the U.S. were to switch to a full socialized/single-payer healthcare system, it would be absolutely disastrous for the average citizen, since healthcare is nearly 18% of the U.S.'s GDP (about $3.3 trillion, about $10,000 per person or $25,400 per household). This amount of spending is more than the entire GDP of every other country except for China, Japan, and Germany.


According to a recent Koch brothers study intended to be against it, Medicare for all (single payer) would save us two trillion dollars over the next ten years.  It's expensive, but it's two trillion less expensive than our current broken system which doesn't cover anywhere near 100% of citizens.

https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/



Barrowsx said:


> As for wage inequality, women make less than men _on average_.


Sorry, I didn't mean gender wage inequality.  I was referring to wage inequality/disparity in general, the refusal to pay average workers a living wage or even a wage that keeps up with inflation.



Barrowsx said:


> Obviously, the U.S. isn't a perfect paradise. Particularly, our public education system is absolute dogshit thanks to No Child Left Behind and the advent of standardized multiple-choice tests being used as a gauge for school funding, and our dependence on coal and fossil fuels should be better, with coal needing to be replaced by nuclear energy and fossil fuels needing to be replaced (mostly) by electric vehicles, but many of these issues are incredibly complicated and are being vastly oversimplified.


Of course these are complex issues, but that doesn't mean complacency will solve any of them.  In cases like education we need an overhaul of the entire system essentially.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 23, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yes, because not only do his claims have no evidence to back them up (and no, looking at IMDB pages or finding similar looking people in photos is not evidence) but they're hairbrained schemes.
> 
> Furthermore, why do you take him seriously? You know he has, under oath of law in front of a jury, outright stated that he plays a character on InfoWars and does not believe in his conspiracy theories?


Just because there's no evidence to back them up doesn't mean they're necessarily untrue. That's what I mean by disproving it.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> Just because there's no evidence to back them up doesn't mean they're necessarily untrue. That's what I mean by disproving it.


"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 23, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."


What I meant by that is that his claims are unfalsifiable.
*Unfalsifiability*. Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.
This means that his claims can't be proven, but also can't be disproven.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> What I meant by that is that his claims are unfalsifiable.
> *Unfalsifiability*. Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.
> This means that his claims can't be proven, but also can't be disproven.


We know exactly what you meant. Loads of ridiculous things are unfalsifiable. The quote I replied with definitely applies here.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> What I meant by that is that his claims are unfalsifiable.
> *Unfalsifiability*. Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.
> This means that his claims can't be proven, but also can't be disproven.


So because it's impossible to prove that his outlandish, damaging, and insensitive assertions are 100% false, we ought to give him a platform as though they are 100% true?


----------



## guicrith (Aug 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So because it's impossible to prove that his outlandish, damaging, and insensitive assertions are 100% false, we ought to give him a platform as though they are 100% true?


Companys should definitely not host his shows, but he has the right to his website if he self hosts and thats likely where he gets a lot of his following, people go to him because they have been so thoroughly convinced everything else is a conspiracy or fake news.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

guicrith said:


> Companys should definitely not host his shows, but he has the right to his website if he self hosts and thats likely where he gets a lot of his following, people go to him because they have been so thoroughly convinced everything else is a conspiracy or fake news.


So Twitter is justified in putting him in "time-out," is what you're saying if I understand correctly


----------



## guicrith (Aug 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So Twitter is justified in putting him in "time-out," is what you're saying if I understand correctly


Yes, he is almost at inciting violence levels of crazy.
People are being chased because of the shit he said and while he has the right to say it no one should assist him in doing it.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 23, 2018)

Issac said:


> Get over yourself.
> You were warned for a racist remark back in 2010, and that warning expired. Then you were warned in 2016 for telling another user (contributor) to eat a dick out of the blue. That also expired.
> So now you have one warning point at the moment, and I was the one giving it to you (and yeah, I probably gave you a 1 week suspension for it). Why? Because you posted neo-nazi stuff... and yes I deleted that comment as well.
> 
> You can hint at your position, hell you can even say it right out and we won't care. Everyone is right to have their opinion and beliefs!


I wish GBATemp had a heart reaction right now


KingVamp said:


> Hate to be that guy, but didn't you just contradict yourself? Just looking for clarity.
> 
> Like if my position was neo-nazism (it isn't) would it be deleted?


He actually made a profile post that read, "1488," which is a hate symbol used by neo-nazis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

guicrith said:


> Yes, he is almost at inciting violence levels of crazy.
> People are being chased because of the shit he said and while he has the right to say it no one should assist him in doing it.


Interesting. I fully agree with you, but I've gotta say I didn't exactly peg you as the type to go after one of the key figureheads in the Alt-Right conspiracy movement


----------



## guicrith (Aug 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Interesting. I fully agree with you, but I've gotta say I didn't exactly peg you as the type to go after one of the key figureheads in the Alt-Right conspiracy movement


My loyalty lies with logic, science and reality above all else, he is none of those, I would only be considered alt-right because I am willing to openly admit my feelings about Islam and the disabled, which are logically sound, but still may be considered extremely immoral.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

guicrith said:


> My loyalty lies with logic, science and reality above all else, he is none of those, I would only be considered alt-right because I am willing to openly admit my feelings about Islam and the disabled, which are logically sound, but still may be considered extremely immoral.


So wait....... You acknowledge that your "views" _are,_ generally speaking, immoral? Is that also how you view them, or just how you recognize that other people view them?


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 23, 2018)

Forgot about this.


guicrith said:


> He called someone a pedophile for disliking his scientifically unsound rescue attempt:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...ave-rescue-diver-pedophile-twitter/786527002/
> 
> Also blames his behavior on Ambian like Roseanne:
> ...





gman666 said:


> He's also close to having his company (Tesla) downgraded by financial agencies and constantly blames everyone else for terrible leadership decisions. And he is close to having a lawsuit on his hands for potentially lying to his investors about taking Tesla private and potentially manipulating such information to undercut short sales. In all honesty, his recent actions are very manic. But that doesn't mean that his accomplishments aren't significant, maybe America will get that Space Force up and running.


I still think he is doing some good, but shame about his ego.



guicrith said:


> thinks saying "go to mars" out loud makes you a scientist.


Did he actually say this? 



Lilith Valentine said:


> I wish GBATemp had a heart reaction right now
> 
> He actually made a profile post that read, "1488," which is a hate symbol used by neo-nazis
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words


That's also something I didn't know about.


----------



## guicrith (Aug 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So wait....... You acknowledge that your "views" _are,_ generally speaking, immoral? Is that also how you view them, or just how you recognize that other people view them?


I dont view them as immoral, I view them as reality, if someone cant function the answer isnt to give them another person as a slave and without that they would die, I also believe that people are clinging to dogma of the past and its time to let go of that.

"all life is precious(cancer and mosquitos are life too)", "the dead should be respected(they dont care they are dead, burning or burying them is a waste of organs and meat that could save others)", "surviving is the most important part of living(if you life sucks its OK to end it, its only worth the joy you can get out of it)" and "your labor/economic value is your worth as a person".

While this may seem evil, people need to realize that by not doing what I am stating just creates more suffering and that accepting death is OK.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 23, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> Just because there's no evidence to back them up doesn't mean they're necessarily untrue. That's what I mean by disproving it.


But they *are* untrue, because there's no evidence disproving the current sequence of events. For his nonsensical theories to be anything more than untrue, nonsensical ramblings, he needs to have coherent proof that disproves the current established sequence of events. Because he does not, but swears up and down they are false, his claims are easily dismissable.

In situations where you're going "everything you currently know is wrong," you damn sure need evidence to back such statements up, or what you're saying is untrue. Simple as that. He disproves his own statements by failing to prove them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



guicrith said:


> I dont view them as immoral, I view them as reality, if someone cant function the answer isnt to give them another person as a slave and without that they would die, I also believe that people are clinging to dogma of the past and its time to let go of that.
> 
> "all life is precious(cancer and mosquitos are life too)", "the dead should be respected(they dont care they are dead, burning or burying them is a waste of organs and meat that could save others)", "surviving is the most important part of living(if you life sucks its OK to end it, its only worth the joy you can get out of it)" and "your labor/economic value is your worth as a person".
> 
> While this may seem evil, people need to realize that by not doing what I am stating just creates more suffering and that accepting death is OK.


No, for this mindset to work, people need to embrace nihilism and come to enjoy a basically meaningless, empty life. No thanks. Even if I'm deluding myself, I'll take colorful delusions over a bunch of black and white nothingness. If my life has no meaning, I will create one.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 23, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> That's also something I didn't know about.


I accidentally moved to a town with an extremely high Neo-nazis and KKK population when I was trying to find a place closer to my work. Knowledge of these symbols became very important very quickly for me. They have an obsession with numbers


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 23, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I accidentally moved to a town with an extremely high Neo-nazis and KKK population when I was trying to find a place closer to my work. Knowledge of these symbols became very important very quickly for me. They are have an obsession with numbers


From my understanding it's so that they can use them as "dog whistles" or whatever the term is so that they can freely find each other by posting seemingly innocuous stuff that has an incredibly dark meaning behind it. Most people aren't gonna look at 1488 and go "oh, that's the rallying call for bald headed LARPers."


----------



## HamBone41801 (Aug 23, 2018)

guicrith said:


> I dont view them as immoral, I view them as reality, if someone cant function the answer isnt to give them another person as a slave and without that they would die, I also believe that people are clinging to dogma of the past and its time to let go of that.
> 
> "all life is precious(cancer and mosquitos are life too)", "the dead should be respected(they dont care they are dead, burning or burying them is a waste of organs and meat that could save others)", "surviving is the most important part of living(if you life sucks its OK to end it, its only worth the joy you can get out of it)" and "your labor/economic value is your worth as a person".
> 
> While this may seem evil, people need to realize that by not doing what I am stating just creates more suffering and that accepting death is OK.


So... you do realize that someday, you’ll tell this to someone irl, and they’ll just fucking murder you, right? (But don’t worry, death is ok!)

Also, I think a major flaw in your whole thought process is that you assume that none of the people you wish would be euthanized have anything to contribute.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2018)

guicrith said:


> I dont view them as immoral, I view them as reality, if someone cant function the answer isnt to give them another person as a slave and without that they would die, I also believe that people are clinging to dogma of the past and its time to let go of that.
> 
> "all life is precious(cancer and mosquitos are life too)", "the dead should be respected(they dont care they are dead, burning or burying them is a waste of organs and meat that could save others)", "surviving is the most important part of living(if you life sucks its OK to end it, its only worth the joy you can get out of it)" and "your labor/economic value is your worth as a person".
> 
> While this may seem evil, people need to realize that by not doing what I am stating just creates more suffering and that accepting death is OK.


The whole point of civilization is to avoid what you're talking about. People depend on each other to varying degrees.

I'm curious about what you think of Stephen Hawking. Did he count as "someone who cant function"?


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 23, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> From my understanding it's so that they can use them as "dog whistles" or whatever the term is so that they can freely find each other by posting seemingly innocuous stuff that has an incredibly dark meaning behind it. Most people aren't gonna look at 1488 and go "oh, that's the rallying call for bald headed LARPers."


Dog whistle is the right term and it's something I've used to lure these kinds of people out.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 23, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> The whole point of civilization is to avoid what you're talking about. People depend on each other to varying degrees.
> 
> I'm curious about what you think of Stephen Hawking. Did he count as "someone who cant function"?


This is a fantastic counter argument. I'd also like to bring attention to the fact that some able bodied people who could totally survive in his oddly specific scenario physically may not survive mentally. They'd probably break down from the isolation and just not make it through. Suggestions for eugenics like this entirely come from ideals, they never actually come from study or logical reasoning.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Suggestions for eugenics like this entirely come from ideals, they never actually come from study or logical reasoning.


Well but Maverick. You see. He is on the side of SCIENCE, LOGIC, and REASONING! That means that no matter what his ideals _must _have a logical basis!


----------



## Leobgood (Aug 23, 2018)

Costello said:


> according to https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/


I am forbidden from entering the survey...I guess that makes me literally Hitler. I'd rather be Stalin - he "eliminated" more peeps before his morning coffee than anyone  else, except Mao Zedong, but he didn't drink coffee. Heroes to left...we can only dream of being as efficient.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

Leobgood said:


> I am forbidden from entering the survey...I guess that makes me literally Hitler. I'd rather be Stalin - he "eliminated" more peeps before his morning coffee than anyone  else, except Mao Zedong, but he didn't drink coffee. Heroes to left...we can only dream of being as efficient.


Jesus Christ dude it's not that deep, the link's just broken. Search for it online and you'll find it


----------



## guicrith (Aug 23, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> This is a fantastic counter argument. I'd also like to bring attention to the fact that some able bodied people who could totally survive in his oddly specific scenario physically may not survive mentally. They'd probably break down from the isolation and just not make it through. Suggestions for eugenics like this entirely come from ideals, they never actually come from study or logical reasoning.



I am not just referring to able bodied, able minded is important too, 1 month isnt that long and I am not saying lock them in a closet for a month as a test either, they can still leave there house if they are lonely, they just wont have a caretaker with them, that wasnt an actual test that would be implemented, it was meant to describe the kind of people capable of surviving after all the services are pulled, there would be no actual "test", you would just survive or die.

As for Steven Hawking, yes he had something to offer, but you have to weigh that against everyone else who is wasting resources, there are far less Steven Hawkings then there are people with Alzheimers alone, no system can be perfect and losing him in return for gaining all the resources the others are wasting is a beneficial trade.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well but Maverick. You see. He is on the side of SCIENCE, LOGIC, and REASONING! That means that no matter what his ideals _must _have a logical basis!



The basis is the optimization of society as whole(the resources as mentioned, no disability ramps, wheelchair elevators, crosswalk beepers), I even acknowledge that recessive traits hide and eugenics cant remove those traits, they just shouldnt be catered to.
Adapt or die, the world shouldnt have to match the lowest common denominator(which keeps getting lower as medicine improves).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

guicrith said:


> The basis is the optimization of society as whole(the resources as mentioned, no disability ramps, wheelchair elevators, crosswalk beepers), I even acknowledge that recessive traits hide and eugenics cant remove those traits, they just shouldnt be catered to.
> Adapt or die, the world shouldnt have to match the lowest common denominator(which keeps getting lower as medicine improves).


So your argument is effectively that if someone breaks their legs, we should remove their ability to reintegrate into society until they heal


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 23, 2018)

guicrith said:


> The basis is the optimization of society as whole(the resources as mentioned, no disability ramps, wheelchair elevators, crosswalk beepers), I even acknowledge that recessive traits hide and eugenics cant remove those traits, they just shouldnt be catered to.
> Adapt or die, the world shouldnt have to match the lowest common denominator(which keeps getting lower as medicine improves).


Let me throw your own logic at you. Adapt or die. This is a much more grim form of "deal with it."

So I'll apply that very frankly. _*Deal with it.*_ Who cares about disability ramps? Or Wheelchair elevators? Crosswalk beepers? Like, dude, just don't use them. You're not going to optimize society by removing that 15 feet by 5 feet ramp beside some stairs, nor will you improve the stairs by making them longer and taller or some shit. You aren't going to make it better by making elevators that don't accommodate people.

Are these your best examples of a society that "matches the lowest common denominator?" Extremely minor ease of access accommodations for people who otherwise would be just as able to do other shit that normally abled (don't know the better term for "people who aren't disabled," someone please school me there) are capable of doing despite their mobility?

What benefit would removing them and the people who use them from society bring? I know the "ists" and "isms" are thrown around too much but this sounds genuinely like it's literally just ableism. 



guicrith said:


> I am not just referring to able bodied, able minded is important too, 1 month isnt that long and I am not saying lock them in a closet for a month as a test either, they can still leave there house if they are lonely, they just wont have a caretaker with them, that wasnt an actual test that would be implemented, it was meant to describe the kind of people capable of surviving after all the services are pulled, there would be no actual "test", you would just survive or die.


how the fuck is this not ableism


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> (don't know the better term for "people who aren't disabled," someone please school me there)


"Abled" actually is the correct term, it's where "ableism" comes from


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> "Abled" actually is the correct term, it's where "ableism" comes from


That's what I wanted to roll with but like ableism the word seemed really weird. Abled, also like ableism, gives me squiggly red lines.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 23, 2018)

I dont get involve in Political at all. They are ALL corruption, thats all. Dont trust them no matter what. NONE.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> That's what I wanted to roll with but like ableism the word seemed really weird. Abled, also like ableism, gives me squiggly red lines.View attachment 140838


Ew white theme

But yeah, it's the commonly accepted term, computer dictionaries just haven't caught up to it yet (much like a lot of more modern/rare terms)


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ew white theme
> 
> But yeah, it's the commonly accepted term, computer dictionaries just haven't caught up to it yet (much like a lot of more modern/rare terms)


Today I learned there's a dark theme, and hot damn is it sexy

Anyways back on topic, it's stances like this that give definitions to such terms. Like, I understand I'm reducing the argument pretty heavily, but how do you look at "if you're disabled, society should stop catering to you, and you should just learn to adapt or die" and not go "Yeah, this guy hates disabled people?"

Like, if I lose my legs, this doesn't prevent me from mixing drinks at a bar, which is the job I'll be picking up soon. The idea that just because your mobility is hindered you're suddenly useless is not only highly offensive, but downright ridiculous and can only come from two scenarios: a jaded teenager who doesn't interact with people, gets all his info online, and builds a ridiculous worldview from it, which is how I had my neo-nazi phase, or just a troll. Either way, it's stances like this that ironically make me interested in political debates, because there's a lot to talk about with them.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Today I learned there's a dark theme, and hot damn is it sexy
> 
> Anyways back on topic, it's stances like this that give definitions to such terms. Like, I understand I'm reducing the argument pretty heavily, but how do you look at "if you're disabled, society should stop catering to you, and you should just learn to adapt or die" and not go "Yeah, this guy hates disabled people?"
> 
> Like, if I lose my legs, this doesn't prevent me from mixing drinks at a bar, which is the job I'll be picking up soon. The idea that just because your mobility is hindered you're suddenly useless is not only highly offensive, but downright ridiculous and can only come from two scenarios: a jaded teenager who doesn't interact with people, gets all his info online, and builds a ridiculous worldview from it, which is how I had my neo-nazi phase, or just a troll. Either way, it's stances like this that ironically make me interested in political debates, because there's a lot to talk about with them.


Or, the third option: He's just a Nazi

Also


> which is how I had my neo-nazi phase


There's a personal redemption story I'd like to hear sometime


----------



## MaverickWellington (Aug 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Or, the third option: He's just a Nazi


I don't think he's a nazi. There's a term for it somewhere I think. Anarcho Communist or something? I've spoken to one that had a very similar stance with more ridiculous ideas than this.

As for the neo-nazi thing, I could DM you about it if you're genuinely interested. It's not some major drama story or anything, just an experience that makes me slightly more sympathetic to dumb kids with dumb political values, and why I believe people's lives shouldn't be ruined just because they say dumb shit.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2018)

guicrith said:


> I am not just referring to able bodied, able minded is important too, 1 month isnt that long and I am not saying lock them in a closet for a month as a test either, they can still leave there house if they are lonely, they just wont have a caretaker with them, that wasnt an actual test that would be implemented, it was meant to describe the kind of people capable of surviving after all the services are pulled, there would be no actual "test", you would just survive or die.
> 
> As for Steven Hawking, yes he had something to offer, but you have to weigh that against everyone else who is wasting resources, there are far less Steven Hawkings then there are people with Alzheimers alone, no system can be perfect and losing him in return for gaining all the resources the others are wasting is a beneficial trade.
> 
> ...



Wow, I didn't think you'd come out and call these people a waste of resources. Nobody wants to be in a place like what you're describing. Like I said before, it's exactly what we're trying to avoid.

Also, who says "the world shouldnt have to match the lowest common denominator"? Why not? Nature is cruel, but people don't have to be.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 23, 2018)

Republican(not this current kind of Republican) that likes food stamps. So I usually end up not voting lol.... I also strongly believe in universal health care.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 23, 2018)

A lot of people are getting replaced by automation anyway.



Ericthegreat said:


> Republican(not this current kind of Republican) that likes food stamps. So I usually end up not voting lol.... I also strongly believe in universal health care.


Just curious, what about basic income?


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 23, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> A lot of people are getting replaced by automation anyway.
> 
> 
> Just curious, what about basic income?


Yes, seems good, not exactly sure how it would be feasible, I'm pretty much democrat the only things I don't like about the far left are hormone replacements for children, and late term abortion, but I am very anti those things.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

Ericthegreat said:


> Yes, seems good, not exactly sure how it would be feasible, I'm pretty much democrat the only things I don't like about the far left are hormone replacements for children, and late term abortion, but I am very anti those things.


-snip-

So I'm going to rewrite what I had posted here, because I thought about it a bit and realized it wasn't correct: what you're describing really IS a moderate social democrat. With the exception of HRT for kids (which I think you should maybe go a bit more in depth on?), all of your views are honestly either pretty or VERY liberal


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 23, 2018)

Again, I don't agree with or condone eugenics, but I want to chime in here. I at least partly see both sides here. He said earlier that he would leave those to die that couldnt survive on their own even if provided with food water and shelter. This doesn't apply to someone that lost their legs and works at a bar or someone in a wheelchair that requires a ramp. This applies to the catatonic, guadriplegic, non-responsive/non-verbal retardation. For those of you that don't know, I'm a male nurse currently working ltc. I work with these types of people every day. You would be surprised how often these people beg for death and morphine. They have zero quality of life. And often resources and help is so short that they don't get the full care they require on a daily basis.

As for the point of "leaving them to die" being worse than "extermination". That's basic human rights. The current law requires leaving them to suffer and die. There was a woman I read about (dont remember who or when, sorry) had a set of twins that went catatonic in early childhood for some reason. They spent 20 some years stuck in a bed with feeding tubes, caths, and ostomy bags. They were nothing but hunks of unmoving flesh and trapped minds.

The mother fought for years to have them euthanized but because of the " simple, bitch" human rights laws, she could only remove forms of life support, ie. feeding tubes. And let them suffer for weeks until they died of starvation.

Like I said, I don't agree with eugenics, controlled breeding or genocide, or whatever weird standards @guicrith would have, but some of societies standards for kindness and "human rights" are a bit fucked up. Because of my experience I can at least partly see where he's coming from. I would challenge you to question your own standards of morality as well.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 23, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Again, I don't agree with or condone eugenics, but I want to chime in here. I at least partly see both sides here. He said earlier that he would leave those to die that couldnt survive on their own even if provided with food water and shelter. This doesn't apply to someone that lost their legs and works at a bar or someone in a wheelchair that requires a ramp. This applies to the catatonic, guadriplegic, non-responsive/non-verbal retardation. For those of you that don't know, I'm a male nurse currently working ltc. I work with these types of people every day. You would be surprised how often these people beg for death and morphine. They have zero quality of life. And often resources and help is so short that they don't get the full care they require on a daily basis.
> 
> As for the point of "leaving them to die" being worse than "extermination". That's basic human rights. The current law requires leaving them to suffer and die. There was a woman I read about (dont remember who or when, sorry) had a set of twins that went catatonic in early childhood for some reason. They spent 20 some years stuck in a bed with feeding tubes, caths, and ostomy bags. They were nothing but hunks of unmoving flesh and trapped minds.
> 
> ...


The law doesn't currently allow for assisted suicide by injection? I could have sworn that was a big controversy when someone legally did that just recently...


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The law doesn't currently allow for assisted suicide by injection? I could have sworn that was a big controversy when someone legally did that just recently...


AFAIK, there are a couple states that have introduced euthanasia. But it has so much red tape that it would be near impossible to get. I did hear of someone receiving it recently as well, but I heard its a pill form.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 24, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> AFAIK, there are a couple states that have introduced euthanasia. But it has so much red tape that it would be near impossible to get. I did hear of someone receiving it recently as well, but I heard its a pill form.


Mm

I personally believe that if a person genuinely is suffering and has articulated (or previously articulated) that they don't want to be confined to a bed for the rest of their life, they should have the right to a humane injection. But that should be by their choice, because history has given us a very stark example of what happens when a party acting in their own twisted interest decides to make that decision for people


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 24, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Mm
> 
> I personally believe that if a person genuinely is suffering and has articulated (or previously articulated) that they don't want to be confined to a bed for the rest of their life, they should have the right to a humane injection. But that should be by their choice, because history has given us a very stark example of what happens when a party acting in their own twisted interest decides to make that decision for people


What about people that can't communicate it


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 24, 2018)

Since we are using extreme examples, if I put in my will that I don't want any kind of euthanasia, would I still be left to die, if he had his way?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 24, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> What about people that can't communicate it


Then all I can say is that that's a discussion more people should be having and including in their will


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Aug 26, 2018)

John McCain just died today. A very outspoken republican against Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/john-mccain-obituary/index.html


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 1, 2018)

Regardless of political persuasion, I'm a firm believer there is common ground to be found among us. For example, although I am somewhat right-leaning I can totally relate with Bill Clinton right here:


----------



## Viri (Sep 5, 2018)

Spoiler


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 11, 2018)

Total Anarcho-Capitalist. If you need to support your ideas and plans with threat of force (the biggest threat of force being the government), it is not worth implementing. Everything that the government does can be done better by market (also known as you and I)


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> *Everything* that the government does can be done better by market (also known as you and I)


Just looking at our healthcare system compare to other countries, I'm going have to disagree.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 11, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Just looking at our healthcare system compare to other countries, I'm going have to disagree.


Your healthcare system is a weird and disgusting mix of socialist and corporatist parts. It's not even close to being a capitalistic system.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Your healthcare system is a weird and disgusting mix of socialist and corporatist parts. It's not even close to being a capitalistic system.


Healthcare aside, what place is your ideal capitalism?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 11, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Your healthcare system is a weird and disgusting mix of socialist and corporatist parts. It's not even close to being a capitalistic system.


Our healthcare system is as capitalist as it gets.  You pay an insurance provider too much money, then the hospital overcharges insurance for every little thing.  The only time any of that cost is offset is with Medicare/Medicaid, but you have to have very specific circumstances to qualify, and even then you're probably going to end up footing much of the bill yourself.



Attacker3 said:


> Everything that the government does can be done better by market (also known as you and I)


If you removed the government at this point, corporations would take over their role in the US.  Things would probably get more authoritarian, and quickly without that pesky constitution in the way.


----------



## ChokingVictim87 (Sep 11, 2018)

Viri said:


> Pretty much this. I'm pretty much Hitler.


Same-although every political compass test I do says centre right....


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 11, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Healthcare aside, what place is your ideal capitalism?


Laissez-Faire, something without market regulations. Did you know that the book of regulations in the USA is 170 thousand pages long? And they keep adding more and more every year. You can't keep that up!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 11, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> If you need to support your ideas and plans with threat of force (the biggest threat of force being the government), it is not worth implementing.


The cross-thread irony here is staggering


----------



## Xzi (Sep 11, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Laissez-Faire, something without market regulations. Did you know that the book of regulations in the USA is 170 thousand pages long? And they keep adding more and more every year. You can't keep that up!


It is definitely too long and needs simplification, but more than that it's still too full of holes for megacorps to exploit.  Even with all this regulation supposedly "hindering" them, many pay zero taxes year after year or even take corporate welfare from taxpayers.  Corporations for the most part already have zero allegiance to the country they were founded in, zero regulation just means regressing all the way back to child labor.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Laissez-Faire, something without market regulations. Did you know that the book of regulations in the USA is 170 thousand pages long? And they keep adding more and more every year. You can't keep that up!


So no place that exist right now? If you had it your way, pollution would be even worse.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It is definitely too long and needs simplification, but more than that it's still too full of holes for megacorps to exploit.  Even with all this regulation supposedly "hindering" them, many pay zero taxes year after year or even take corporate welfare from taxpayers.  Corporations for the most part already have zero allegiance to the country they were founded in, zero regulation just means regressing all the way back to child labor.



And what do you think will happen if we cover up all of those holes? 

All the businesses leave the country cause it's too expensive. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in a pure free market. There absolutely should be restrictions to make sure nobody gets killed at their day-job. But by the same token, over-regulating is just going to piss off the small businesses who want to offer better deals as the mega-corps bribe and payoff anyone who could prosecute them. Next thing you know you have Buy-N'-Large controlling the entire government.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It is definitely too long and needs simplification, but more than that it's still too full of holes for megacorps to exploit.  Even with all this regulation supposedly "hindering" them, many pay zero taxes year after year or even take corporate welfare from taxpayers.  Corporations for the most part already have zero allegiance to the country they were founded in, zero regulation just means regressing all the way back to child labor.



I think you misunderstand the point of regulation. It's not for the consumer's protection. Generally. regulation is there to benefit the corporation, causing a higher cost of entry for new competition. And you gotta ask yourself, if 170 THOUSAND pages can't stop a corporation from not paying taxes, what will? The government is ineffective at even securing funding for itself! You have two options. either the government is run by the corporations, allowing them to pay almost no taxes, or that they're incredibly ineffective, and frankly, dumb to a point where they can't plug a tax loophole in 170 thousand pages of regulations.

I would also like to say that child labour isn't inherently a bad thing. It's been a part of society for a very long time, and the only reason it has went out of style in the western world is because we as a society have created enough capital to make employing children a terrible way to make cash. Why would you have an unskilled, untrained, uneducated, and undisciplined worker, when you can wait for them to go through education, and hire a person who is at the very least educated. You wonder why most jobs require a high school degree? That's why. Child labour wouldn't be a thing in the western world without regulation. The reason why it's a thing is poorer countries is the fact that they haven't built up enough capital, and have not created a lot of jobs that require education.
   If a family can not survive unless their 8 year old child works, then I say let them work. Putting regulations in place to prevent them from doing so just causes needless deaths of families who collapse under their own weight.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> The cross-thread irony here is staggering


I would prefer if you didn't offer your snide remarks instead of an actual argument. There is a difference between parenting and political ideology. Perhaps I should have said "political ideologies" instead of ideas. I apologize for the confusion.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Child labour wouldn't be a thing in the western world without regulation.


There are already corporations that use overseas child labor and sell their products in the US, so "it couldn't happen here" seems awfully naive.  You're right though, the more likely scenario without regulation is that corporations just decide existing employees can survive off a $0.05/hr minimum wage.



TerribleTy27 said:


> And what do you think will happen if we cover up all of those holes?
> 
> All the businesses leave the country cause it's too expensive.


Oh lordy, I'm clutching my pearls as we speak!  God forbid all the biggest leeches on the system ever left and allowed smaller businesses to rise up to take their place.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There are already corporations that use overseas child labor and sell their products in the US, so "it couldn't happen here" seems awfully naive.  You're right though, the more likely scenario without regulation is that corporations just decide existing employees can survive off a $0.05/hr minimum wage.



If the companies paid people only $0.05/hr, prices would shift accordingly. That's how the market works. And yes, there are corporations that use child labour, and if you read my post. you would realize that I said it happened in places that haven't built up enough capital! Even if it does not look like that, those corporations are building up those countries. It happened in Europe a while ago. Before, the kids would help with the farming, and the cooking, and the cleaning on the farm, or go into a "trade" and work there at the age of 12. They married young, worked young, and had children young. As they built themselves up, they found out that the more complicated jobs required education, so they started replacing the child workers with people who were educated. It became much more economically sensible to put someone through school than to have them work. School is an investment, and an educated worker makes much more capital than someone who does not. You will see in the next 50 to 100 years those places that were being paid pennies an hour will be paid reasonably well, enough to not be in extreme poverty. This can be seen in the data showing people living in poverty. I just wish we could how how good capitalism could do without being shackled to government regulations in the US, because places without these regulations are growing at an extremely pleasing rate. Capitalism creates wealth.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> If the companies paid people only $0.05/hr, prices would shift accordingly. That's how the market works.


Rofl, that's not how inflation works.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> If the companies paid people only $0.05/hr, prices would shift accordingly. That's how the market works. And yes, there are corporations that use child labour, and if you read my post. you would realize that I said it happened in places that haven't built up enough capital! Even if it does not look like that, those corporations are building up those countries. It happened in Europe a while ago. Before, the kids would help with the farming, and the cooking, and the cleaning on the farm, or go into a "trade" and work there at the age of 12. They married young, worked young, and had children young. As they built themselves up, they found out that the more complicated jobs required education, so they started replacing the child workers with people who were educated. It became much more economically sensible to put someone through school than to have them work. School is an investment, and an educated worker makes much more capital than someone who does not. You will see in the next 50 to 100 years those places that were being paid pennies an hour will be paid reasonably well, enough to not be in extreme poverty. This can be seen in the data showing people living in poverty. I just wish we could how how good capitalism could do without being shackled to government regulations in the US, because places without these regulations are growing at an extremely pleasing rate. Capitalism creates wealth.



Oh, and it's funny how these companies start paying their employees more. I thought that without regulations, companies would just pay them 0.05/hr

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Rofl, that's not how inflation works.


If the average person could not afford a loaf of bread priced at 3 dollars, people would sell their bread for less, thanks to the decreased costs of labour making it possible to sell it for cheap. And no, that's not how inflation works, because I'm not talking about inflation. Inflation happens when the demand is higher than supply for a good, which usually happens when there is an increase in wages. The inflation happens because supply cannot meet the demand, so people raise prices. A small and gradual change in wages allows markets to plan and slowly increase supply. Companies cannot just create an absurd amount of supply at once, which usually happens with minimum wage hikes.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> The inflation happens because supply cannot meet the demand, so people raise prices.


That's also not what inflation is.  The dollar doesn't suddenly become worth more when you lower people's wages, it just means the people at the top are taking more of those wages for themselves.  If the modern minimum wage had kept pace with inflation and we were making the same that people were in the 70s/80s, it would be at around $20/hr in 2018.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

What's the point of laws? People just keep breaking them, so let's just get rid of all of them.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> What's the point of laws? People just keep breaking them, so let's just get rid of all of them.


It really is asinine saying corporations have to deal with too many regulations.  The 2008 economic crash is what happens when they're allowed to let their ultra-capitalist wet dreams run wild; it's amazing what a short memory this country has.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's also not what inflation is.  The dollar doesn't suddenly become worth more when you lower people's wages, it just means the people at the top are taking more of those wages for themselves.  If the modern minimum wage had kept pace with inflation and we were making the same that people were in the 70s/80s, it would be at around $20/hr in 2018.


Excuse me, yes it is. The Demand-Pull effect is one of the main causes of it, behind the money supply issue (Aka federal reserve just printing more money, which devalues the currency). The Cost-Push effect is also another reason for that. I encourage you to research the two, since minimum wage increases cause both the Demand-Pull effect and the Cost-Push effect, causing a double whammy of inflation.


KingVamp said:


> What's the point of laws? People just keep breaking them, so let's just get rid of all of them.


I don't know what you're referring to, if you're talking about regulations, then you need to realize that nobody is breaking them currently, and that is the fault of the government for letting it happen, for either two reasons
1. They are incompetant
2. They are controlled by the corporations.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> It really is asinine saying corporations have to deal with too many regulations.  The 2008 economic crash is what happens when they're allowed to let their ultra-capitalist wet dreams run wild; it's amazing what a short memory this country has.



I remember this incredibly well. I remember it as a time where bailouts were plentiful, and many companies that should have went out of business in a capitalist economy were propped up the government. It's a sad day, because it was a time where companies got too greedy, and should have ended up failing, but instead were saved by the heroic government, and are allowed to be greedy without a care in the world, knowing full well if they screw up, they'll get saved again. That is not capitalist in any way.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> I don't know what you're referring to, if you're talking about regulations, then you need to realize that nobody is breaking them currently, and that is the fault of the government for letting it happen, for either two reasons
> 1. They are incompetant
> 2. They are controlled by the corporations.


If this is the case, 

1. Just means we need better (not necessarily more) regulations.
2. So, what makes you think no regulations corporations would be better?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Oh lordy, I'm clutching my pearls as we speak!  God forbid all the biggest leeches on the system ever left and allowed smaller businesses to rise up to take their place.


You completely missed the rest of my post. By businesses, I meant small businesses. The mega-corps have enough money that they can easily dodge all the regulations. All youre doing by over-regulating the market is pissing off the small businesses.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Excuse me, yes it is. The Demand-Pull effect is one of the main causes of it, behind the money supply issue (Aka federal reserve just printing more money, which devalues the currency). The Cost-Push effect is also another reason for that. I encourage you to research the two, since minimum wage increases cause both the Demand-Pull effect and the Cost-Push effect, causing a double whammy of inflation.


If you cut workers' wages to $0.05/hr, the same amount of money is still circulating.  We'd still owe the same amount of money to various foreign banks.  It wouldn't magically cost less to produce the same products, we're in a global market.  At the same time, paying workers more doesn't _have_ to mean increasing the cost of most products, especially since most aren't even made in the US.  Productivity has gone up, but wages haven't kept pace.



Attacker3 said:


> I don't know what you're referring to, if you're talking about regulations, then you need to realize that nobody is breaking them currently, and that is the fault of the government for letting it happen, for either two reasons
> 1. They are incompetant
> 2. They are controlled by the corporations.


The Republicans are both incompetent _and_ controlled by corporations.  That doesn't mean we should let Wal-Mart run the country just because they're holding the government hostage at the moment.



TerribleTy27 said:


> You completely missed the rest of my post. By businesses, I meant small businesses. The mega-corps have enough money that they can easily dodge all the regulations. All youre doing by over-regulating the market is pissing off the small businesses.


Taxes fall into brackets for that very reason.  If Republicans really did care about small business like they claim, then they'd raise taxes on corporations and lower them on small business.  Lowering taxes for both just means the big fish eat the little ones that much quicker.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Taxes fall into brackets for that very reason.  If Republicans really did care about small business like they claim, then they'd raise taxes on corporations and lower them on small business.  Lowering taxes for both just means the big fish eat the little ones that much quicker.



Raise taxes? Where? All they'd do is outsource their production to a cheaper country and we lose out on even more money.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> If this is the case,
> 
> 1. Just means we need better (not necessarily more) regulations.
> 2. So, what makes you think no regulations corporations would be better?



1. And we haven't been able to do this yet, why? Oh right, they're incompetent. We've spent decades trying to make "better" regulations. If it's so easy, then why don't the guys in charge just do it?
2. Regulations are generally a barrier of entry to new companies who want to try and come into the fray. Corporations can foot the costs for regulations, but a new person can't easily foot the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars it requires to get into something like the food industry, or even the automobile industry, places that desperately need competition.


Xzi said:


> If you cut workers' wages to $0.05/hr, the same amount of money is still circulating.  We'd still owe the same amount of money to various foreign banks.  It wouldn't magically cost less to produce the same products, we're in a global market.  At the same time, paying workers more doesn't _have_ to mean increasing the cost of most products, especially since most aren't even made in the US.  Productivity has gone up, but wages haven't kept pace.
> 
> 
> The Republicans are both incompetent _and_ controlled by corporations.  That doesn't mean we should let Wal-Mart run the country just because they're holding the government hostage at the moment.



I have no idea what kind of economics you're describing, but it sure isn't one on planet Earth. What you need to understand is companies subsist on people BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS. If people cannot buy their products because they are prohibitively expensive, then they MAKE NO MONEY. In a free market economy, companies would also be vying for the best candidates, upping prices  I also see you're looking at this through a political lens instead of a purely economical one, so I don't really see a point in arguing, unless you want to put your biases aside and argue purely economics?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Raise taxes? Where? All they'd do is outsource their production to a cheaper country and we lose out on even more money.


This has proven to be nonsense time and again.  Plenty of presidents have raised taxes on corporations/the wealthy.  They stay because America is an essential consumer market, not because they really have any loyalty to us.  They use overseas tax havens or other methods to try to dodge as much as possible, even when their taxes get cut.  And of course they sell in plenty of other markets too.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> This has proven to be nonsense time and again.  Plenty of presidents have raised taxes on corporations/the wealthy.  They stay because America is an essential consumer market, not because they really have any loyalty to us.  They use overseas tax havens or other methods to try to dodge as much as possible, even when their taxes get cut.  And of course they sell in plenty of other markets too.



So you're saying we should raise taxes on people who don't even pay taxes? Hmm, something just doesn't add up.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> So you're saying we should raise taxes on people who don't even pay taxes? Hmm, something just doesn't add up.


They dodge as much as possible, but most still end up paying _something_.  Just nowhere close to the percentage that the middle and lower classes have to pay.  Obviously there are those corporations who do pay their fair share out of a sense of duty to the nation, but I'd likely count them few.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> They dodge as much as possible, but most still end up paying _something_.  Just nowhere close to the percentage that the middle and lower classes have to pay.  Obviously there are those corporations who do pay their fair share out of a sense of duty to the nation, but I'd likely count them few.


https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/amazon-earned-5-6b-in-2017-but-paid-no-federal-taxes


And don't get me wrong, I totally support amazon in doing this. The less money the government gets, the better.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

By the way I'm signing off for the night, I'll continue this tomorrow night perhaps, but I am a very busy man, and I have stuff I need to do.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/amazon-earned-5-6b-in-2017-but-paid-no-federal-taxes
> 
> 
> And don't get me wrong, I totally support amazon in doing this. The less money the government gets, the better.


Well you'd think so with the current administration, but they somehow still manage to fund shit like child detention camps.

Sponsored by New Balance I'm sure.  /s


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well you'd think so with the current administration, but they somehow still manage to fund shit like child detention camps.
> 
> Sponsored by New Balance I'm sure.  /s



That's a whole can of worms in itself, but I cannot argue that tonight. Have a good sleep, and go research the cost-push and demand-pull inflation for me, ok champ?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> That's a whole can of worms in itself, but I cannot argue that tonight. Have a good sleep, and go research the cost-push and demand-pull inflation for me, ok champ?


I know what supply and demand is.  The point I was making is that corporations would gladly crash the economy if it means enough short-term profits in the interim to insulate themselves from any impending recession.  That's likely what's happening right now with the tax cuts followed by tariffs.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> They dodge as much as possible, but most still end up paying _something_.  Just nowhere close to the percentage that the middle and lower classes have to pay.  Obviously there are those corporations who do pay their fair share out of a sense of duty to the nation, but I'd likely count them few.



I genuinely don't understand this method of thinking. At this point pretty much all academic papers have concluded that lower taxes results in higher GDP.

SOURCES:



Spoiler



Ergete Ferede & Bev Dahlby, _The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces_, 65 National Tax Journal 563-594 (2012).

Norman Gemmell, Richard Kneller, & Ismael Sanz, _The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries_, 121 Economic Journal F33-F58 (2011).

Mertens & Morten Ravn, _The dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the United States_, American Economic Review (forthcoming) (2012).



I could grab ten more sources right now.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

I like to known which country, if ever, is 100% capitalist. 



Attacker3 said:


> 1. And we haven't been able to do this yet, why? Oh right, they're incompetent. We've spent decades trying to make "better" regulations. If it's so easy, then why don't the guys in charge just do it?
> 2. Regulations are generally a barrier of entry to new companies who want to try and come into the fray. Corporations can foot the costs for regulations, but a new person can't easily foot the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars it requires to get into something like the food industry, or even the automobile industry, places that desperately need competition.


1) Doesn't really help that there is a specific group that keep taking away regulations. That aside. It is not like every single company is breaking regulations and getting away with it. Not sure why the answer to poor regulations or some people breaking regulations is no regulations. 
2) Yeah, I rather not risk things such as a higher chance of food poisoning or shady built cars just because entry might be harder.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I genuinely don't understand this method of thinking. At this point pretty much all academic papers have concluded that lower taxes results in higher GDP.


Which doesn't mean dick unless wages get higher accordingly, and they never do if Republicans/corporations get their way.  Or if you prefer: it only means the rich get richer, and that's not breaking news to anybody.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Which doesn't mean dick unless wages get higher accordingly, and they never do if Republicans/corporations get their way.  Or if you prefer: it only means the rich get richer, and that's not breaking news to anybody.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but these tax cuts also raised the deficit.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but these tax cuts also raised the deficit.


The federal deficit is expected to hit one trillion by the end of the month.

https://thinkprogress.org/deficit-expected-one-trillion-dollars-two-years-earlier-37a00472e3c3/

And Trump transferred ten million out of FEMA and into ICE ahead of hurricane Florence, oof:

https://www.axios.com/trump-transfe...ce--c6023a2f-5778-4c6d-992e-3f6da13bce25.html

I guess so they can afford to triple the size of the detention camp for migrant children:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...980c02-b5ee-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Which doesn't mean dick unless wages get higher accordingly, and they never do if Republicans/corporations get their way.  Or if you prefer: it only means the rich get richer, and that's not breaking news to anybody.



How do you think they get richer?

They invest. They research products, which creates job opportunities. Then they manufacture, which creates more job opprtunites. Then other rich people realize that product could be made cheaper and better. So they invest and start the process over. This creates competition. As rich people look for a way to get a leg up on their competition, they pay people with the right skill sets more money due to prevent said people from getting hired by their competition.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 12, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> How do you think they get richer?


They don't pay their workers wages that keep pace with their productivity (or inflation), pretty simple.


----------



## WeedZ (Sep 12, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> How do you think they get richer?
> 
> They invest. They research products, which creates job opportunities. Then they manufacture, which creates more job opprtunites. Then other rich people realize that product could be made cheaper and better. So they invest and start the process over. This creates competition. As rich people look for a way to get a leg up on their competition, they pay people with the right skill sets more money due to prevent said people from getting hired by their competition.


Successful investors are only a small percentage of the upper class. They aren't even the richest. The top of the ladder are people like Jeff Bezos and the waltons, who run huge corporations that continue to cut wages, create horrible work conditions, and make reasonable benefits near impossible for their workers.


----------



## JeepX87 (Sep 12, 2018)

I'm libertarian that is mostly fiscally conservative and socially liberal, pro-gun, smaller government and full liberties, also I'm consider myself as pro-military because some of my families serve in the military, however I'm not advice for war without absolutely good reason to defend our country. I do respect to people with different views, even liberal or conservative.

For some reasons, USA can't go full libertarian, so it is common to have mixed of conservative, liberal and libertarian.

I'm not into political debate unless it is related to disability rights, especially Deaf and DeafBlind.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Sep 12, 2018)

I don't know and personally don't really care I'll vote for whoever has a manifesto that benefits me most


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

Xzi said:


> They don't pay their workers wages that keep pace with their productivity (or inflation), pretty simple.





WeedZ said:


> Successful investors are only a small percentage of the upper class. They aren't even the richest. The top of the ladder are people like Jeff Bezos and the waltons, who run huge corporations that continue to cut wages, create horrible work conditions, and make reasonable benefits near impossible for their workers.



Of course there aren't successful investors. Up until fairly recently the taxes have been absurdly high. Only people who got lucky early can succeed in today's business world. The reason you have Amazon's horrific work conditions and low wages is because there's nowhere else to go for their workers, and Jeff Bezos knows it.

If taxes stay low and business friendly, Amazon competition will soon pop up, and Jeff will have to get better company policy, lest his workers leave him.


----------



## mattytrog (Sep 12, 2018)

Politics... Gawd...

Progressive new-age liberal here...



NOT!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently I`m far-right. And politically incorrect. Apparently.

Someone had a right go at me the other day. Went past a branch of shop called "Lush" in the UK. Sells bath bombs and all that shyte women like.

All I said was it smells like a p00fs palace in here. That was it. WW3.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Could you link that article? Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd like to see it in print. Plus... 37% still isn't exactly a number to be proud of, especially for the guy that won by getting the second highest number of votes
> 
> Also, something you need to understand is that unemployment has been on a decline for years, so every year for the last few has been "an all time low." The issue with Trump's statistic is that the GROWTH RATE is far lower than previous years, which means that while unemployment is going down and jobs are being created, it's at a far lower point than it has been in 6 years, which _will not_ be sustainable until something different is done about it


Unemployment rates are based on the percentage of people in the labor force not working. People that stop looking for work are not counted in the unemployment statistics. So unemployment rates can go down while while the number of people not working goes up. This includes people that stop looking for work and instead rely on government welfare programs.

Under Obama from 2009 to 2013 more than 3.7 million workers went on social security disability payments which was the fastest enrollment pace ever. This greatly affected unemployment rates. Along with other welfare programs under Obama.

If you want a better measurement of unemployment you would compare the amount of the adult population that is working (minus people in colleges, prison, military, hospitals, prison, etc). This avoids not counting people who had givin' up looking for work. An example in the first half of 2010 while unemployment was at 9.5 percent, the amount of working age adults that didn't work increased to what was the largest it has been in half a century. Under Obama the amount of working-age population that was not working was higher then in many yrs.

Also jobs created in an administration and economic growth are not always a result of policies of that administration because it ignores that the economy can recover on its own without government intervention. An example would be the stock market crash of 1929. Unemployment never reached the double digits during the 12 months after the crash. It was until government started to intervene and try to "fix" things that made things worse and unemployment went into the double digits in the 30's. We had a history of 150 yrs of the government doing nothing since this countries creation and the economy recovered every time. It was until the government decided to do something that we had the worse economic crisis in the 1930's that has never happened before. Its also a myth the Franklin Roosevelts policies saved America, his policies were actually shown to prolonged the Great depression.

Obama's policies to try to "fix" things from Taxes, Obama Care, and all the Anti Buisness policies he's made made the economy and employment rates worse.
While unemployment rates are low under Trump, I haven't checked if working age people employment rates have gone up, so I might be giving him a early unwarranted praise. I personally don't like some of the things Trump has done and I think if the public was better informed, especially on the Basics of Economics Trump, Hilary and Bernie Sanders wouldn't have been the presidential candidates.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> Successful investors are only a small percentage of the upper class. They aren't even the richest. The top of the ladder are people like Jeff Bezos and the waltons, who run huge corporations that continue to cut wages, create horrible work conditions, and make reasonable benefits near impossible for their workers.


This ignores that the majority of people at the bottom income brackets move up into higher brackets since there is great income mobility in the United States. The vast majority of people in the bottom income brackets have had their wages doubled within 15 yrs. This is due to gaining education and skill which increases wages. Its a myth the the rich are keeping the poor, poor, since income brackets are not permanent places. More likely young people are in the low income bracket. And older people gaining experience are in the higher brackets. Its also a myth that wages have stagnated, our living standards have gone up.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 14, 2018)

Chary said:


> Saying you're in the middle because you see flaws on both sides, in and of itself is flawed, as even the direct middle line is flawed, too.
> 
> I tend to go a little right. I preferred Trump to Hillary this past election, I found the Republican Party utterly pathetic when they faced Obama, though to the latter himself, I didn't think was amazing either.
> 
> ...


To help you with the gun debate. People always compare the United States with a country that banned guns. But they never compare that same country with banned guns, before and after they banned the guns to see if getting rid of firearms improved the situation. And it actually doesn't.

England for example had crime rates rise after they banned guns. Before they banned guns Englands crime rates were declining as guns were becoming more available over the centuries. And gun control wasn't in response to a huge epidemic in England either. England was always a historically low gun crime place compared to New York, so comparing America with Europe countries is not a fair comparison that more gun availability leads to more murder. Since both places had guns widely available but crime in US was higher due to culture.

In 1911 New York had one of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., and England didn't ban guns until a decade after, but with less guns available New York still had higher murder rates then England which still had guns more widely available. This shows that comparing one country with banned guns to country with no bans doesn't mean much.

Guns restriction which became more strict over the years in 1900's England which lead to crime and murder rates rising. It got worse as the years went by. In 1954 there was about 10 armed robberies, by 1990's there is 100x as much. Gun restriction took guns away from law abiding citizens and left them defenseless, and criminals still gets access to them illegally. Its like trying to ban alcohol with prohibition. Its not going to make alcohol go away. Right now England passed the U.S in armed robbery and burglary rates. Banning guns did little to reduce it and instead increased it. Armed Murder rates have been going up in England, while murder rates went down in States in the U.S that made guns more widely available. 13% of burglaries in U.S. are when homeowners are in their house. While more than 40% in Britain, Canada and Netherlands, all with strict gun control, are with owners inside homes, criminals feel safer to rob.

Switzerland has lower gun murders then Germany even though they have higher gun owner ship. New Zealand, Israel, and Finland have high gun ownership and low murder rates. In U.S rural areas have higher gun ownership than urban yet have lower rates of murder. Whites have more gun owner ship then Blacks but Black murder rates are higher. Gun ownership doubled in the late 21 century but murder rates declined overall in U.S. Majority of murders is from Blacks and if you only count White gun murders, U.S. is on par with some of the safer countries, its Blacks and Hispanics that makes U.S. look dangerous in statistics. This combined with sentencing leniency, because apparently sending Blacks to jail is racism, made crime rates go up. They also made leniency in England too because apparently we need to feel empathy for criminals.

You can find this information from these books, Guns and Violence by Joyce Lee Malcom. And the Thomas Sowell Reader.


----------



## bi388 (Sep 14, 2018)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Oh I love the hypocrisy.
> So he is not allowed to insult someone, but it is alright for you and everyone else to insult him? Gotcha.
> 
> And it does matter bc the media is pushing the narrative of him being racist when the insult clearly is not.


"this is hypocrisy. you hold the president to a higher standard than 15 year olds on the internet?"


----------



## WeedZ (Sep 14, 2018)

SG854 said:


> .
> This ignores that the majority of people at the bottom income brackets move up into higher brackets since there is great income mobility in the United States. The vast majority of people in the bottom income brackets have had their wages doubled within 15 yrs. This is due to gaining education and skill which increases wages. Its a myth the the rich are keeping the poor, poor, since income brackets are not permanent places. More likely young people are in the low income bracket. And older people gaining experience are in the higher brackets. Its also a myth that wages have stagnated, our living standards have gone up.


That doesn't even make sense. If it's an expectation to move into higher income brackets as you get older, then why do the percentages of each class pretty much stay the same? Obviously a huge percentage of lower classes arent making it anywhere, otherwise we would see an increase in middle class families. And its not like the middle class is moving up to the upper class. The upper class is 30% less than the middle class.

What youre talking about is a myth. It's a fantasy of how things "should" work. Get better education, gain skills, move up. But now you can see what people have been complaining about. Education isn't available to everyone. Its expensive, and if you didn't come from a family that can afford it you have to play the scholarship lottery.

As far as gaining skills.. people at the bottom dont typically work trade jobs or in a corporate environment. There is no room for advancement in factories, warehouses, fast food, retail, etc. They are all entry level positions.

Factories have become so accustomed to recycling people that there are business called staffing agencies. Uneducated people go to these agencies who "rent" them out to other companies. Factories can basically put in an order for people like they would any other resource like metal, plastic, machinery.

These positions are temporary. When the factories are done with you they send you back and you wait to be rented out again. You dont get to negotiate wage as the agency does the negotiating, and not in your favor. remember, lowest bid wins the contract. And then they skim off the top of your hourly income.


----------



## mattytrog (Sep 14, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> That doesn't even make since. If it's an expectation to move into higher income brackets as you get older, then why do the percentages of each class pretty much stay the same? Obviously a huge percentage of lower classes arent making it anywhere, otherwise we would see an increase in middle class families. And its not like the middle class is moving up to the upper class. The upper class is 30% less than the middle class.
> 
> What youre talking about is a myth. It's a fantasy of how things "should" work. Get better education, gain skills, move up. But now you can see what people have been complaining about. Education isn't available to everyone. Its expensive, and if you didn't come from a family that can afford it you have to play the scholarship lottery.
> 
> ...


If I had my way, every agency world be blown sky high. They have decimated the labour market.

Zero hours contracts etc etc... Just bad.

Workers have allegedly lots of rights here in the UK.

But it's all a load of bollocks. The employers hold all the cards. You are at the mercy of these people.


----------



## WeedZ (Sep 14, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> If I had my way, every agency world be blown sky high. They have decimated the labour market.
> 
> Zero hours contracts etc etc... Just bad.
> 
> ...


A lot of states here have free-to-work. Which is suppose to mean that you can take a job with no contract, terminate your employment whenever you want and have the freedom to change employers at will. But what this actually means is that your employer has the freedom to terminate you for no reason, put you on a probationary period to decide if they need you or not, and largely prohibits labor unions and worker rights.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 17, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I get what you're saying, but I've always seen this stance used as an example, I've never seen it actually put in practice. True centrism is trying to find compromise for both sides, but in practice and execution, in your example most people who are against the killing would end up being very center. A more proper example based on current events would be more like
> 
> "White men are responsible for the systematic oppression of all non-whites, so we're justified in hating them!"
> 
> ...


Theres probably an IQ difference between races. And obviously people born with low IQ, like those with Mental Retardation and Down Syndrome aren't going to be Harvard Graduates anytime soon. IQ research is important because researches are trying to create a sort of IQ pill that will raise the IQ of everyone. This will help low IQ people a lot. 

But with the Black White IQ debate, I don't think Blacks have reached there full potential with the low IQ tests scores they have. IQ tests are not biased despite what some people say. Life is unfair and thats what IQ tests measure. But one thing to consider is Northern Blacks have higher IQ scores then Southern Whites. Immigrant Blacks have higher IQ then American Blacks. And American White and Black WW2 soldiers that had kids with Germans, both the half Black German and White German kids have equal IQ's. 

First Borns have higher IQ's then their siblings. And singly born kids have high IQs. Most Nobel prize winners and NASA workers are first borns or singly born. The amount of time parents dedicate to their kids influences IQ. There is also an IQ cutoff of 140. Most Nobel prizes are given to people under 140 IQ, so having a natural born gift for High IQ isn't everything, its also your learning. Whats keeping American Blacks IQ low is their toxic ghetto culture. Anytime a Black tries to get an education they gets criticize for acting White or being an Uncle Tom. Theres lots of violence and aversion to work. Blacks that don't have this toxic culture are more successful. 

Its also pretty ironic that Blacks are criticized for acting White when their culture didn't even come from Blacks, it came from White Southerners. Ebonics, the Arrogance and Violence came from White Rednecks that came to America from Europe. Ebonics originates from Europe. All the things said about the Irish like being adverse to work, education, being violent, lazy, is exact parallels to what they said about Blacks. There were signs that said "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" because they didn't want to deal with the trouble they'll bring. The High Violence between White Crackers is equivalent to violence between Blacks today. More Whites were lynched than Blacks, thats how violent they were to each other. Homicides were high between rednecks. Blacks got this toxic culture from them since most Blacks were in the South during slavery. This culture mostly largely died out but still survives in black ghetto neighborhoods. Its the culture holding Blacks back like it held back white rednecks. And Black Churches being known for being energetic and loud, that came from Whites. 



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Interesting. The situation might be different where you are, but here in Iowa I see a LOT of people who have stances along the lines of "well yeah the police obviously shouldn't be beating people up in general, but rioting and protesting like BLM isn't any better. (????) And by the way, why do 'black lives matter' more than anyone else?"
> 
> It's pretty disgusting, but then again Iowa is a super red state. So again, the center here is pulled much further right, especially in the middle-aged range


Most things said about the Police are lies. A systemic Police force is not being racist and killing blacks in high numbers. A lot of it is all made up. And some blacks are afraid to speak out because they are being threatened by their community if they do. And Blacks are suffering from this lie. If people knew how toxic some of black neighborhoods are then they'll realize how messed up this whole thing is and that innocent cops are being targeted.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 20, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/
> 
> I mean, 37% approval from the black community is good, it means they're waking up. Especially for a republican guy, thats a huge amount of support


It's time for Black's to walk off the Democratic plantation. I see more and more Blacks stop being Democrats. 

1940's and 1950's poverty rates was higher for Black's then today but incarceration and Crime rates were lower. High Crime is not because of Poverty and from High Racism in 40's and 50's. The War on Drugs is blamed for Incarceration Rates but Blacks make up 37.6% of State Prison population and State Prisons houses more than 80% of all Prisoners. Even if you remove all Drugs Offenders in Federal and State, prison population will still be around 37.4%. It's Violent Offenses and Property Crime that drives high Black Incarceration rates not Drugs. 

The harsh penalties for Crack Cocaine in the 1980's was supported by most Congressional Black Caucus because many Black leaders said it was destroying Black communities and they wanted longer prison sentences. It was Black legislatures that pushed for tougher drug laws, this is something that is conveniently left out when they want to Blame Drug Sentencing on racist Whites. 

The crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970's and 1980's in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cleveland were in places under Black Mayors, Black Police Chiefs, Black Council Members, and Black School Superintendents. Some of the most violent cities are run by Blacks and yet somehow its White peoples fault and their racism in the system.

It's not genetics and racism thats holding Black's back. It's the culture that holding them back. The culture of anti education and praising crime. And most Blacks even in the most violent cities are not criminals, it's only a small minority of teens and young adults thats committing most of the crime. Many Blacks in the inner cities actually respect what cops do that put their lives in jeopardy to protect Blacks so they wont have to sleep in bath tubs at night so they wont be hit by stray bullets in a neighborhood shooting.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Sep 20, 2018)

On the floor. Ugh


----------

