# What do the Left and Right agree on?



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 21, 2018)

*Updated title: What do the Left, Center, Right agree on?*
Nowadays things are getting more and more separated with politics but I can assure you there are more peace loving people than we see. I want to make light of the issue and ask, *What do we agree on?*
Please don't harass people with opposite views. I want to discuss not fight. For myself, I want to say we agree on ALCOHOL! 21 should stay as the age to buy/consume!  Lord knows what would happen without it. <3


----------



## SG854 (Oct 21, 2018)

Get rid of politics section on GBAtemp. This should be a gaming centric site.


----------



## TyBlood13 (Oct 21, 2018)

Most of the world does just fine with a drinking age of 18 or 19, but ok


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 21, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Get rid of politics section on GBAtemp. This should be a gaming centric site.


<Guilty

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



TyBlood13 said:


> Most of the world does just fine with a drinking age of 18 or 19, but ok


When I was 18 I was so into wanting to dirnk but I couldn't. In my opinion I felt it was unfair to smoke tobacco and not be able to drink at 18 even though I was able to have a driver's license and enlist in the military and have granted guns. To be honest I would entertain the idea of a 18+ drinking age but I wouldn't be sure just based on my own opinion.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 21, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Get rid of politics section on GBAtemp. This should be a gaming centric site.


This post right here.


----------



## Seliph (Oct 21, 2018)

Here's my list:

Killing people is bad
Don't pee in pools
Shrek the Third was a bad movie
Mayonaisse is the worst condiment
Chicken lay eggs
etc...


----------



## SG854 (Oct 21, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> This post right here.


Heck i’ll have mods take down all my polital threads.

I think the only reason Costello made a politics section was because too many people kept making political topics. It was by force to separate it out from gaming sections.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2018)

There are actually quite a few things the majority of both parties agree on.  Two examples would be marijuana legalization and environmental protection.  It's just that Republican constituents never hold their leaders accountable when they take a stance against widely popular issues like those.



SG854 said:


> Heck i’ll have mods take down all my polital threads.
> 
> I think the only reason Costello made a politics section was because too many people kept making political topics. It was by force to separate it out from gaming sections.


It's still effective for that.  Take away this section and people would just move political discussions back into gaming sections or blogs.  Or even worse, try to sneak it into user submitted news (one glaring recent example of that).  There's no good reason to remove this subforum, it's not like it's become the most active part of the site.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There are actually quite a few things the majority of both parties agree on.  Two examples would be marijuana legalization and environmental protection.  It's just that Republican constituents never hold their leaders accountable when they take a stance against widely popular issues like those.
> 
> 
> It's still effective for that.  Take away this section and people would just move political discussions back into gaming sections or blogs.  Or even worse, try to sneak it into user submitted news (one glaring recent example of that).  There's no good reason to remove this subforum, it's not like it's become the most active part of the site.


I’m already tired of politics so i’m gunna stay away from it for a while. I’ll try to keep this site game centric. Except for the EOF stuff where it’s free for all.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I’m already tired of politics so i’m gunna stay away from it for a while. I’ll try to keep this site game centric. Except for the EOF stuff where it’s free for all.


> Insert 'okay then, that was always allowed*' scene from Rick and Morty.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's still effective for that.  Take away this section and people would just move political discussions back into gaming sections or blogs.  Or even worse, try to sneak it into user submitted news (one glaring recent example of that).  There's no good reason to remove this subforum, it's not like it's become the most active part of the site.


My only real issue with this section is that some issues get overrun by a particular group of people who end up completely controlling the conversation. It's made a lot of threads into echo-chambers.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> > Insert 'okay then, that was always allowed*' scene from Rick and Morty.


At least try to be game centric with my posts. With a little dash of other threads like what books you read, blah blah.

Heck I’ll make a game centric thread right nowzeez.



Lilith Valentine said:


> My only real issue with this section is that some issues get overrun by a particular group of people who end up completely controlling the conversation. It's made a lot of threads into echo-chambers.


I’ve never really seen echo chambers at least here. There was always opposing views. 

If someone had the better argument then those people wouldn’t have been able to dominate the debate.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 21, 2018)

SG854 said:


> At least try to be game centric with my posts. With a little dash of other threads like what books you read, blah blah.
> 
> Heck I’ll make a game centric thread right nowzeez.
> 
> ...


It's some topics, not all of them. I digress though, maybe it's just me looking for a problem and finding one.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 21, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> It's some topics, not all of them. I digress though, maybe it's just me looking for a problem and finding one.


There’s that stubborn person here and there. But it is what it is.

If you look for problems you’ll always find one guaranteed.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 21, 2018)

SG854 said:


> There’s that stubborn person here and there. But it is what it is.
> 
> If you look for problems you’ll always find one guaranteed.


That's a huge reason why I tend to avoid this section. I know I can fall for confirmation bias and see the worst in people by doing so


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 21, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> When I was 18 I was so into wanting to dirnk but I couldn't.



When I turned 18, the drinking age had been 18 until only a few years before. They changed it in my state to 19 for beer and wine, 21 for liquor, but they included a grandfather clause for people who were already legal. Then a few months before I turned 19, they changed it again, to 21 for everything. And this time, no grandfather clause. The new law became effective July 1, and my birthday's in the first week of June. So I was legally able to buy beer for just over 3 weeks (and I did), then I had to wait another two years to be legal again. I don't care which party the politicians behind that prick move belonged (probably both). They suck.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 21, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> That's a huge reason why I tend to avoid this section. I know I can fall for confirmation bias and see the worst in people by doing so


You won’t fall for confirmation bias if you actively look for both sides. 

Look at opinions on this site then look for different opinions on another place.

That’s how a scientists does research. You should always look for things that try to disprove your own theories. Because if your theory is solid then it should hold up no matter what you throw at it. If you don’t do this then what you’re doing is bad science.

For some people is scary to hold a long belief and it be crushed one day. It hits you hard. And sometimes you need a breather. You’re taken back as you process and re-think everything. 

People sometimes don’t want to accept this so they block off lots of things and opinions in favor for a more comforting feeling. People don’t like their beliefs crushed.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 21, 2018)

SG854 said:


> You won’t fall for confirmation bias if you actively look for both sides.
> 
> Look at opinions on this site then look for different opinions on another place.
> 
> ...


I am not disagreeing, but there are some topics where the other side isn't worth looking at. I am trying to keep this vague for various reasons, mostly not to derail the conversation. If you want, I can go into more detail via a PM.


----------



## matthi321 (Oct 21, 2018)

their paycheck


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 21, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> there are some topics where the other side isn't worth looking at.




That's an awfully obstinate position. If you don't think the other side is even worth looking at because you just JUST KNOW you're right about it and they're wrong, then you probably aren't looking too hard at your own side of it, either.

(sending illustrative example by pm)


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 21, 2018)

I see how bringing these topics up tend to bitter the taste of us gamers. Can I ask a mod to take remove this or how does it work? Report? lol


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 21, 2018)

For what it is worth we have always had politics discussions for the entire time I have been here or following here. Seems to do OK here.

Back on topic.
It depends where you are in the world. The usual one I go with is no right wing UK politician of any real note cares about increasing access to guns, abortions or making sure healthcare stays private in the same way a US right wing politician might have it as their bread and butter. The UK set might have individual positions but as far as pushing for law and policy... nah.

Similarly I saw a very interesting video a while back (can't find it right now) detailing the positions people hold relative to time and positions the major parties have taken. Several things arose but one of the big ones was that the right wing parties by measure of their typical talking points have gone rather more centrist in recent years whereas the left has gone very left (possibly alienating a lot of their traditional base at the same time). Said positions will also have to be accounted for as well -- not all right wing types will be "enough to secure the borders and nothing more" and instead probably something like "borders and ensure your rights", however they will probably also be happy with roads being built, schools being sorted... though they may differ on whether individual states or a higher level will be the main driving force for it. At the same time many left types will find the idea that some float of no borders at all to be bat shit insane.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 21, 2018)

I have a question for the right wing:

Just how much degrees (celcius) ARE you okay with the earth warming? 


For some freaking reason, this whole debate gets presented as if it's something people on the left want. But I'm pretty sure that IF the climate spirals out of control, we will all either die or be worse off. So with the scepsis of scientists as taken for granted (or is it? It's often presented as if people on the right side distrust science, but I honestly don't know for sure  )...just how many degrees do YOU think is smooth sailing?


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 21, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I have a question for the right wing:
> 
> Just how much degrees (celcius) ARE you okay with the earth warming?
> 
> ...


1 degree... Fahrenheit. 



FAST6191 said:


> Several things arose but one of the big ones was that the right wing parties by measure of their typical talking points have gone rather more centrist in recent years


Most definitely true or how they do in Reddit: *^This *


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 22, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I have a question for the right wing:
> 
> Just how much degrees (celcius) ARE you okay with the earth warming?
> 
> ...



Well, most republicans I know take a very nihilistic viewpoint to this(if they think global warming is even an issue, and even then, most of them think it's due to natural causes. Pompeii and other volcanic explosions eventually led into the ice age they claim). Basically, after looking at the simulations, most of them have determined that anything we do in regard to global warming is pointless. To stop global warming, not only would we have to shut down tons of factories and power plants(Millions without a job). I would predict the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression. Possibly worse. Even beyond that, there's no guarantee the other countries will do the same. China'll just snicker as he asks how we'll pay off our debt now.

But besides that, the market has been moving to nuclear and solar for years now, without any government intervention. Because it's plain cheaper in a lot of cases.

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

Oh, and Marijuana legalisation. Everybody in the room, no matter the time, place, or race, can agree that marijuana should be legal.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 22, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> 1 degree... Fahrenheit.


Pretty unlikely. Scientists are desperately getting countries to keep things within 1.5 degrees Celsius heating  That's about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, so that would make political right even more eager to put through than the left (granted : it would fit the description of 'conservative ).

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



TerribleTy27 said:


> Well, most republicans I know take a very nihilistic viewpoint to this(if they think global warming is even an issue, and even then, most of them think it's due to natural causes. Pompeii and other volcanic explosions eventually led into the ice age they claim). Basically, after looking at the simulations, most of them have determined that anything we do in regard to global warming is pointless. To stop global warming, not only would we have to shut down tons of factories and power plants(Millions without a job). I would predict the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression. Possibly worse. Even beyond that, there's no guarantee the other countries will do the same. China'll just snicker as he asks how we'll pay off our debt now.
> 
> But besides that, the market has been moving to nuclear and solar for years now, without any government intervention. Because it's plain cheaper in a lot of cases.


I know all that. That's precisely why I'm asking. Look... If a location raises 100 degrees Celsius - that's the difference between the freezing point of water and its boiling point - then no sane man is going to argue it's no longer livable. There is no "but the economy" or a"its not our fault " question then but a " this place is uninhabitable ". Would that be a scenario worth trying to prevent?

Sorry... I know you can't answer that on behalf of an entire group. But that debate is getting me more and more the mental image of one group trying to rescue the human race while another basically says "screw future generations".


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 22, 2018)

That the other one is wrong.

That they are the only ones that are intelligent.

That they are the only group honestly making money.

That it's the end of the world as we know it.

I can't say they both want to overthrow the US government and turn into a dictatorship because I only hear that from one side. The other wants to overthrow the US government and hasn't thought about what comes next.

So I guess that's like half in common right?


----------



## PrincessLillie (Oct 22, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Get rid of politics section on GBAtemp. This should be a gaming centric site.


Then we'd have to delete the blogs section, the EoF, General Off-Topic Chat, etc.
Give people a place to talk about things other than gaming, honestly.


----------



## CaptainSodaPop (Oct 22, 2018)

matthi321 said:


> their paycheck



Literally. What they should agree on is that they should be both equally active and cooperate in a constructive way instead of endlessly trying to find wrongs in others viewpoints. My 2 cents.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 22, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Pretty unlikely. Scientists are desperately getting countries to keep things within 1.5 degrees Celsius heating  That's about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, so that would make political right even more eager to put through than the left (granted : it would fit the description of 'conservative ).
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



It's more one group wants to prolong the inevitable and make it infinitely more painful for everyone involved, while the other group doubts said end is even coming, and would rather focus on things that we know we can fix. At least, that's the impression I get. Let me put it this way. Even if everybody took the strictest approach possible to the Paris agreement... We would still be screwed. Rather then try to stop it, they'd much rather be prepared for when it does happen(if it even happens).

Basically the left wants to stop it from happening. (Despite that being virtually impossible)

The right thinks if it is real, they'd much rather stockpile food and start researching genetic engineering to make plants survive higher average temperatures.


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 22, 2018)

We live in a society


----------



## SG854 (Oct 22, 2018)

They both agree hurricanes are bad


----------



## seren3 (Oct 22, 2018)

They both dislike the rich


----------



## elevenism (Oct 22, 2018)

I think we, in the us, agree on a hell of a lot more subjects than the media and government would have us believe. It's in the interest of the rich to have the poor fighting with each other instead of them.
So we are presented with fringe ideologies as though they are what everyone believes, and eventually, these stances are adopted. 

What we've got going on in the US is a corporate oligarchy, and what we all have in common is that the people with the money, the ones who buy our politicians, have us all right where they want us.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 23, 2018)

MUST PROTECT WHIMN


----------



## x65943 (Oct 23, 2018)

Things both sides seem to agree on. Drone strikes and projection of power - killing innocent people to further our geopolitical interests.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Oct 23, 2018)

The whole internet doesn't live in the US ~.

One problem that you might not be aware in the US... is that the medias are less interested by presenting you with a political spectrum and more about telling you what to think. On both sides, there's really not a lot of actual debate, you don't find tv shows where people from both parties are debating and confronting ideas. When they do, it's always one versus all, always with mockery, and never go deep into things with actual argumentation.

It's no wonder that both sides can't talk to each other anymore, it's no wonder that people actually believe there's only two sides, while the political spectrum is much wider than that.


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 23, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Things both sides seem to agree on. Drone strikes and projection of power - killing innocent people to further our geopolitical interests.


The leaders of both sides seem to agree on this, but I no longer see much support for endless meddling and war among their subjects.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 23, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Just how much degrees (celcius) ARE you okay with the earth warming?


That's a very silly question. Of course nobody wants the Earth to heat up, but you have a couple options to stop it.
1. Cease almost all production of goods
2. Keep going and develop tech later

The first would destroy many nations struggling to create wealth, and it will capitulate already existing nations. You'd have nothing left to save, it would just be a bunch of dead people and tribes fighting over cans of SPAM. That's a bit of a hyperbole, I know, but the idea is funny. 

Then the second is just stuff like this. We'll find a way, and if it rises a little bit, we'll find a way to cool it off. A huge increase in temperatures would be catastrophic, but not apocalyptic.


----------



## BlastedGuy9905 (Oct 23, 2018)

dont kill
dont steal
dont make others feel bad


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 23, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> That's a very silly question. Of course nobody wants the Earth to heat up, but you have a couple options to stop it.
> 1. Cease almost all production of goods
> 2. Keep going and develop tech later
> 
> ...



That is a rather forced dichotomy. I agree it is a problem started by technology and ultimately to be solved by it but in the meantime it might serve to lessen the effects (say less fossil and more nuclear and renewable, still enjoy the same power capacity and resulting quality of life though).


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 23, 2018)

BlastedGuy9905 said:


> dont steal


The right and the left both like stealing when it comes to taxes


BlastedGuy9905 said:


> dont make others feel bad


The right generally doesn't care if they make people feel bad when they are in the right.

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



FAST6191 said:


> (say less fossil and more nuclear and renewable, still enjoy the same power capacity and resulting quality of life though).


Oh I love nuclear energy! Don't get me wrong, if there's a way to get energy that's useful and environmentally friendly, then go for it! The issue is that private companies can't make nuclear facilities, since nuclear material is regulated so heavily, and it's all up to the government to decide for it to happen, which they wont ;-;


----------



## CORE (Oct 23, 2018)

They Love Money  and Spin Bullshit for Praise.

It all a lot of shit I agree with @SG854.



SG854 said:


> Get rid of politics section on GBAtemp. This should be a gaming centric site.





Gaming and leave this Bullshit in the Gutter where it belongs you cant do or go anywhere now theres Politics Oh Trump is this or that and Brexit is Nightmare Bigots , Racists , Pokemon.  You think Gaming Site would be Breath of Fresh Air or Games for that matter And now even Doom is Racist and Hateful towards the SJW Snowflakes and against Immigrants in reality maybe it speaks too much of the Truth.

I Mean no wonder everyone is pissed constantly they are walking through this Smog everywhere they go "Always take the Weather with you" Pun Intended.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 23, 2018)

CORE said:


> They Love Money  and Spin Bullshit for Praise.
> 
> It all a lot of shit I agree with @SG854.
> 
> ...


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 23, 2018)

CORE said:


> They Love Money  and Spin Bullshit for Praise.
> 
> It all a lot of shit I agree with @SG854.
> 
> ...



a) do you think we did not have a massive giggle at the Doom stuff around here?

b) while not everything is political to extricate it from everything is remarkably hard (could I discuss a call of duty story for instance under such a regime?) and I am not sure what purpose it serves -- we all seem to be big enough and ugly enough to have discussions around here, have been the entire time I have been around here as well (and from what I can tell the time before I was around here too). I am sure there are sites that have bland and boring discussions about the correct mouse sensitivity for lemmings paintball* or something, don't know what gave you the impression this was one of them. If you want to advocate for such a thing then so be it, I don't think you will get too much traction around here though.

*that might be closer to a strawman than I would like. Maybe a 90s/2000s style one man army hyperviolence is all good as long as it is nazis, zombies, aliens or alien nazi zombies (maybe the occasional Vietcong or terrorist mercenary), no sex please we're British gamers, politics is lame so just don't but I do like the occasional break with a go on tetris, sonic or mario type site still exists.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 23, 2018)

The actual politicians on both sides actually agree on quite a bit. More federal power, more spying, continuing both the war on drugs and terror, and wiping their asses with the Constitution.  They use these sensationalist topics like gay rights (which should be a given, really, was this worth arguing over? Only the most hardcore Bible thumpers disagree with gay rights) and villianizing someone because he was a drunk high school student who got a little grabby with another drunk high school student. Divide and conquer, people. Personally I feel if there were more third-party people elected, not necessarily for president, things would get a lot less ugly. I don't agree with everything the Libertarians stand for, but they seem like the best choice to start fixing things and get people united again. I think people are just too afraid of the responsibility that extra liberty would require and they feel more comfortable living whatever narrative their particular side of the political spectrum has crafted for them.


----------



## socialbacon (Oct 23, 2018)

The Canadian / United States political systems are broken, I'm sure the left and right both agree on that. The dual-party First Past The Post election system has created a nationwide "us-VS-them" divide that must be healed, or we are going to be our own demise.
Electoral reform is necessary. Proportional representation is a must to heal the divide.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 23, 2018)

socialbacon said:


> The Canadian / United States political systems are broken, I'm sure the left and right both agree on that. The dual-party First Past The Post election system has created a nationwide "us-VS-them" divide that must be healed, or we are going to be our own demise.
> Electoral reform is necessary. Proportional representation is a must to heal the divide.


If only it were that easy. Any mention of a third party among anyone is simply met with a "lol wasted vote" or they claim that thrid party votes take away from either republicans or democrats (whichever side they agree with), which is kind of true, but we're actually taking votes from _both. _Personally I feel the two-party system is the biggest hindrance to the American people and their freedom, and it needs to die a quick but painful death .


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 24, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> people actually believe there's only two sides, while the political spectrum is much wider than that.


Yes, I feel as if I can't be part of the parties because I lean more towards the center which is considered by the many to still be part of 'the far right'.


deinonychus71 said:


> the medias are less interested by presenting you with a political spectrum and more about telling you what to think.


I call it *Monopoly.*  and it sucks but I generally watch news from right leaning liberals. (or so I assume they are, not trying to label anyone)


Attacker3 said:


> tribes fighting over cans of SPAM.


Excuse me? I'd kill for SPAM.. 

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



socialbacon said:


> The dual-party First Past The Post election system has created a nationwide "us-VS-them" divide


I gotta look into this, never heard of it tbh.


----------



## socialbacon (Oct 24, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> If only it were that easy. Any mention of a third party among anyone is simply met with a "lol wasted vote" or they claim that thrid party votes take away from either republicans or democrats (whichever side they agree with), which is kind of true, but we're actually taking votes from _both. _Personally I feel the two-party system is the biggest hindrance to the American people and their freedom, and it needs to die a quick but painful death .



Here in BC Canada, we're in the process of filling out mail-out ballots to vote on proportional representation. The first question is a Yes or No response to electoral reform, and the second is choosing your preferred system to replace First-Past-The-Post. Wish us luck!


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 24, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> That's a very silly question. Of course nobody wants the Earth to heat up, but you have a couple options to stop it.
> 1. Cease almost all production of goods
> 2. Keep going and develop tech later
> 
> ...


*sigh*

1. I never said anything about wanting the earth to heat up. This is interpreting the situation in a way to dodge the answer
2. only the second option will stop it (also: next point). The first not only is indeed extremely unlikely, but also won't do anything of the current situation
3. From the article: "Developers say the plant will capture about 900 tons of CO2 annually — *or the approximate level released from 200 cars* ".  Not to criticize the solution, but that technology needs to be increased at a pace more rapid than Moore's law to make even a dent in even the current escalation in the process, let alone revert anything.
4. I REALLY hate to disagree with you, but your last sentence is wrong. The IPCC's latest rapport flat out tells that unless we make HUGE changes NOW, we won't be able to reduce the consequences to 'merely' catastrophic...it will be apocalyptic (summary example).

...but okay: I get the point. The right's answer will always be "we'll fix the problem when it appears".


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 24, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> unless we make HUGE changes NOW, we won't be able to reduce the consequences to 'merely' catastrophic...it will be apocalyptic


I think it won't work unless other countries, *cough China*, put their part as well, I read an article a few years back of a man vacuuming the smog in the air and creates a brick. How can we keep a neighborhood clean if the person down the street dumps trash and the wind blows it.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 24, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> t technology needs to be increased at a pace more rapid than Moore's law to make even a dent in even the current escalation in the process,


What the hell does Moore's law have to do with a CO2 capturing plant?


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 24, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> e HUGE changes NOW, we won't be able to reduce the consequences to 'merely' catastrophic...it will be apocalyptic


The report you link recommends total net-zero CO2 across the globe, and mentions nothing about an apocalypse.



Taleweaver said:


> "we'll fix the problem when it appears".


We will. You can't just reach net-zero emissions without stopping trillions of dollars worth of production, putting billions out of work. I mean, I suppose starvation is also a pretty good way to reduce emissions, but even then I don't think that I would enjoy seeings billions starve to death.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 24, 2018)

I find that most people agree on most issues, it's the implementation of solutions that's the point of contention. The rest is just pretending to be stupid to tug the party line, being willfully ignorant or purposefully deceitful in order to achieve certain goals.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I find that most people agree on most issues, it's the implementation of solutions that's the point of contention. The rest is just pretending to be stupid to tug the party line, being willfully ignorant or purposefully deceitful in order to achieve certain goals.



Well yeah. People agree that the poor should get more wealthy. The left generally thinks the way to do so is to take from others in order to  increase wealth, while people on the right generally think that removing barriers to work is the best way to do so. Stuff like that is what people disagree on.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Well yeah. People agree that the poor should get more wealthy. The left generally thinks the way to do so is to take from others in order to  increase wealth, while people on the right generally think that removing barriers to work is the best way to do so. Stuff like that is what people disagree on.


The left prefers to raise wages, the right thinks we can make everyone rich just by lowering taxes.  Lowering taxes does essentially nothing for low-income individuals though, as their taxes are already minimal.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The left prefers to raise wages, the right thinks we can make everyone rich just by lowering taxes.  Lowering taxes does essentially nothing for low-income individuals though, as their taxes are already minimal.


You can't just raise wages without having an adverse affect on the the market. Inflation is a thing. Please learn about cost-push inflation and demand-pull inflation. Raising wages does nothing to affect that the actual wage of people. Sure, they're getting paid 15 bucks an hour, but they're only going to buy the same amount when they were paid 9. The actual wage stays the same.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> You can't just raise wages without having an adverse affect on the the market.


I understand that, it's just not nearly as drastic an effect as you're making it out to be.  Minimum wage has been raised several times already, and even taking inflation and the slight increase in product costs into account, people always have more money at the end of the day.  You're buying into corporate talking points in that "anything which is good for workers must be bad for the company at large."  As if they won't dump all workers for automation the second it's advanced enough regardless of pay rates.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> more money at the end of the day.


If it wasn't bad for the company they'd already have done it. If a company could pay it's workers a thousand bucks an hour and still operate at the same level, they'd do it just to be competitive with their wages. If you had even the most basic understanding of how markets operate you would not be saying this at all. You also need to understand that the USA is not even close to being a free market. It's a corporatist hell-hole.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> If it wasn't bad for the company they'd already have done it. If a company could pay it's workers a thousand bucks an hour and still operate at the same level, they'd do it just to be competitive with their wages. If you had even the most basic understanding of how markets operate you would not be saying this at all. You also need to understand that the USA is not even close to being a free market. It's a corporatist hell-hole.


It's a corporatist hellhole specifically because it _is_ a free market and corporations can do whatever they want to choke out competition.  Stop pretending like CEOs would give out pay raises from the goodness of their hearts if the government would just let them.  That's already allowed and it isn't happening.  Best you'll get is a pay raise from places like Amazon, and then a discontinuation of bonuses and holiday pay to balance out the raise.  Corporations are not loyal to workers any more, they haven't been since the 50s or 60s.  Nor do they care about finding the 'best' people for the job, everybody is replaceable.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's a corporatist hellhole specifically because it _is_ a free market and corporations can do whatever they want to choke out competition.  Stop pretending like CEOs would give out pay raises from the goodness of their hearts if the government would just let them.  That's already allowed and it isn't happening.  Best you'll get is a pay raise from places like Amazon, and then a discontinuation of bonuses and holiday pay to balance out the raise.  Corporations are not loyal to workers any more, they haven't been since the 50s or 60s.  Nor do they care about finding the 'best' people for the job, everybody is replaceable.


Let me ask you 2 questions.

Do you support Bernie Sanders?

And should we use Scandinavian countries like Sweden as a role model for how to structure our economy like Bernie says?


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> specifically because it _is_ a free market


https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Explain why United States ranks as #18 on how free their markets are, and every country above them in the other 17 rankings aren't corporatist hell holes? If America is so free, why are they ranked number 18? In your mind, do you consider thousands and thousand of regulations telling you what and what not to do "free"? In Hong Kong, guess what you do to get a business license? You stand in a line for 20 minutes, write down your business, and then they stamp it.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's a corporatist hellhole specifically because it _is_ a free market and corporations can do whatever they want to choke out competition.


I do agree that there are constantly people who want to screw over the free market, and we should obviously keep them from doing that. But saying that the corporatism is a direct result of free market is absurd.


Xzi said:


> Stop pretending like CEOs would give out pay raises from the goodness of their hearts if the government would just let them.  That's already allowed and it isn't happening.  Best you'll get is a pay raise from places like Amazon, and then a discontinuation of bonuses and holiday pay to balance out the raise.  Corporations are not loyal to workers any more, they haven't been since the 50s or 60s.  Nor do they care about finding the 'best' people for the job, everybody is replaceable.


And this is why we need to lower the barrier of entry for small business.

You see, you're looking at this all wrong. You think that if there is less regulation, CEOs won't do bat to pay their workers fairly, right? 

Well I ask you look at the big picture. The reason why Amazon can get away with the stuff they do is because their workers have nowhere to go. Granted, it's difficult to achieve, but in a small-business-friendly world... Options pop up like magic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The left prefers to raise wages, the right thinks we can make everyone rich just by lowering taxes.  Lowering taxes does essentially nothing for low-income individuals though, as their taxes are already minimal.


That's the point of disagreement - perspective. What the left means by "raise wages" is to force private citizens, at the point of a gun, to enter into contracts that are not beneficial to them, which constitutes coercion. I would *love* for everyone to earn more, I just want them to do it themselves by becoming more skilled and thus more valuable to employers. What "lowering taxes" does is increasing the capacity of entrepreneurs to expand their companies and thus employ more people, which in turn increases demand, which in turn increases wages. An entrepreneur can buy a new location, they can't buy new people - they have to rely on the work force available. Y'know what they do when that workforce is no longer viable to employ due to artificially inflated wages? They close shop and move to India. The left is too focused on the number at the end of the paycheck and not focused enough on what that paycheck can afford to buy. The standard of living has been steadily increasing despite stagnant wages specifically because rampant capitalism has allowed the decrease in pricing. That's a whole different debate though, the whole point was that we both see the "problems", we just have vastly different solutions for them, which is why dialogue is important.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
> 
> Explain why United States ranks as #18 on how free their markets are, and every country above them in the other 17 rankings aren't corporatist hell holes? If America is so free, why are they ranked number 18?


Because this is the inevitable result of unfettered capitalism.  The market is only free until the biggest players establish themselves at the top, and then they use whatever tools are at their disposal to suppress competition.  In America's case, we gave corporations so much freedom that they essentially bought out government, and now they set their own regulations.  Capitalism has largely failed us in that regard.



SG854 said:


> Let me ask you 2 questions.
> 
> Do you support Bernie Sanders?
> 
> And should we use Scandinavian countries like Sweden as a role model for how to structure our economy like Bernie says?


I do support Sanders, though we don't necessarily need to borrow the entirety of somebody else's system.  Just bits and pieces.  A tax on gasoline to pay for increased investment in renewable energy sources, for example.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Because this is the inevitable result of unfettered capitalism.  The market is only free until the biggest players establish themselves at the top, and then they use whatever tools are at their disposal to suppress competition.  In America's case, we gave corporations so much freedom that they essentially bought out government, and now they set their own regulations.  Capitalism has largely failed us in that regard.
> 
> 
> I do support Sanders, though we don't necessarily need to borrow the entirety of somebody else's system.  Just bits and pieces.  A tax on gasoline to pay for increased investment in renewable energy sources, for example.


So you also support that we should structure our economy like Sweden right?


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> So you also support that we should structure our economy like Sweden right?


We need more comprehensive social programs and more Socialist influences on our economic system, but no it doesn't have to be exactly like Sweden.  The US is obviously a much larger country, so there are more moving parts to take into account.  We need a system thoroughly customized for us.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 24, 2018)

Based on your previous posts you are for regulation correct.

Sweden industries are heavily deregulated. They have less regulation then the United States. @Attacker3 as shown by the link he posted. So if U.S. should be like Sweden then that means less government regulation.

The only way Sweden funds their social programs is by heavily taxing the poor. That’s the only way they can make it work. Because they know if they tax the rich out the ass, they will leave the country and their economy will plumit.

Low income earners is Sweden pay a lot more taxes then low income earners in America. People that are below average income pay 60% in taxes. People think that the rich pay more taxes but it’s the opposite, they pay less and poor pays more, that’s how they make their system work.

Not only that they privatized many industries getting rid of government control and privatized schools and social security. That’s how they make anything work.

Socialism’s is government owns the means of production which is what Sweden isn’t. That’s North Korea and Venezuela.

Just some things on how they make things work.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> We need more comprehensive social programs and more Socialist influences on our economic system, but no it doesn't have to be exactly like Sweden.  The US is obviously a much larger country, so there are more moving parts to take into account.  We need a system thoroughly customized for us.


I think yes to more comprehensive social programs like say for disabled veterans, or the mentally unstable. Like when we had hospitals for crazies-before they were shutdown for the wierd and horrible shit but I think with modern tech we can have better hospitals for people like that.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> So you also support that we should structure our economy like Sweden right?


I'm curious, why do you ask? 

Edit: Welp, that's what I get for having so many tabs.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 24, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I'm curious, why do you ask?
> 
> Edit: Welp, that's what I get for having so many tabs.


So now you know what I’m trying to get at?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 24, 2018)

Every single "socialist wonderland" left-wing populist point their finger at when they criticise the U.S. have heavy restrictions on the use of social services, including and not limited to rationing of medical care, economies based on capitalist principles and heavily outsized taxation on private citizens, not corporations. There's a reason why Swedes do better in America than they do in Sweden. Once over a half of your income goes towards taxes, you're effectively a slave of the state. Me, I want to know that every penny I earn is mine and I can *choose* to spend it. Nothing good ever comes from safety - everything that has ever improved humanity came at a risk. Unfortunately, we teach people to rely on safety instead of being willing to take a risk, that's why they'll happily spend buckets of money on a lottery, but they won't invest that same money on the stock market, nor will they build their own companies. People want instantaneous rewards, not long-term success. It is for that reason that most lottery winners, no matter how much they win, quickly become poor again - no amount of free money can buy reason.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Every single "socialist wonderland" left-wing populist point their finger at when they criticise the U.S. have heavy restrictions on the use of social services, including and not limited to rationing of medical care, economies based on capitalist principles and heavily outsized taxation on private citizens, not corporations. There's a reason why Swedes do better in America than they do in Sweden. Once over a half of your income goes towards taxes, you're effectively a slave of the state. Me, AI want to know that every penny I earn is mine and I can *choose* to spend it. Nothing good ever cones from safety - everything that has ever improved humanity came at a risk. Unfortunately, we teach people to rely on safety instead of being willing to take a risk, that's why they'll happily spend buckets of money on a lottery, but they won't invest that same money on the stock market, nor will they build their own companies. People want instantaneous rewards, not long-term success. It is for that reason that most lottery winners, no matter how much they win, quickly become poor again - no amount of free money can buy reason.


Even the medical care they say we should emulate Canada and European countries.

But it’s more common for Canadians to go to the U.S. to get treatment then the other way around. Their government system has degraded. What they can get free in Canada they still come to the U.S. and pay for our Health Care.

Even the Primier of Quebec comes to the U.S. to get their Medical Care. And has since the 90’s. They don’t want to use the free Canadian system. Which isn’t actually free because taxes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Even the medical care they say we should emulate Canada and European countries.
> 
> But it’s more common for Canadians to go to the U.S. to get treatment then the other way around. Their government system has degraded. What they can get free in Canada they still come to the U.S. and pay for our Health Care.
> 
> Even the Primier of Quebec comes to the U.S. to get their Health Care. And has since the 90’s. They don’t want to use the free Canadian system. Which isn’t actually free because taxes.


The waiting times are a big problem, which is why people choose to go to private institutions instead. Routine surgery can be delayed for years, by that point a minor inconvenience can become a major issue - people don't have the time to wait. Healthcare is a difficult subject to discuss though as, realistically, it's an industry where the customer doesn't get a choice - they either buy in or they, potentially, die. The U.S. isn't much better - the insurance system is messed up big time, a result of years of government intervention and no free market principles regulating it.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 24, 2018)

SG854 said:


> People think that the rich pay more taxes but it’s the opposite, they pay less and poor pays more, that’s how they make their system work.


I'm still trying to see if these claims, especially this one, are even true. This aside for now, the Nordic countries still seems to be the happiest places and have better services, so they must being doing something right.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 24, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I'm still trying to see if these claims, especially this one, are even true. This aside for now, the Nordic countries still seems to be the happiest places and have better services, so they must being doing something right.


I would like to know more about how their governments operate.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 24, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> What the hell does Moore's law have to do with a CO2 capturing plant?


Sorry, but you misread what I said and drew a wrong conclusion. It doesn't have anything to do with it in itself.

What I did say, however, was that *the rate of increment* in technology improvements need to grow, and needs to grow fast. An exponential growth that is typical for some phenomenon (AMONG WHICH Moore's law) would certainly help in the long run, but we're really running out of time to even achieve that.



Attacker3 said:


> The report you link recommends total net-zero CO2 across the globe, and mentions nothing about an apocalypse.


You haven't checked that link I wrote. Lemme summarize the summary even further.
3:07: "the direst report ever received"
3:22: "even half a degree celcius of a difference could be catastrophic"
4:49 "the difference between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees is massive"
6:06 "the fallout of two degrees celsius  sounds truly biblical".

...but I give you credit: no mention of an apocalypse.

GG. 




Attacker3 said:


> We will. You can't just reach net-zero emissions without stopping trillions of dollars worth of production, putting billions out of work. I mean, I suppose starvation is also a pretty good way to reduce emissions, but even then I don't think that I would enjoy seeings billions starve to death.


I disagree on two fronts.

Surely you've heard the known example of the melting of the polar caps. Those ice mountains reflect some of the sun's radiation back into space. Meaning: if temperatures rise, we will have more of the consequences we already see (longer, harder, tougher weather), a rising sea level AND further increased temperature. Each of these problems will require more manpower than is needed to solve the problem now...and as is shown, we cannot even solve that one problem. I bet that if these three problems are starting to appear, more people will be busy applying solutions from the shown remedies (e.g.: building higher embankments against the sea level) than finding a long term solution for the root cause.

The whole "putting billions out of work" is a flat out lie. What is needed is innovation, research and a whole lot of making new buildings. Old technologies need to be dismantled and replaced, lots of places need to be cleaned...there are, in fact, far more job opportunities than the current industry. Heck...the current industry could very well be the one doing all this. It's just that they need international laws to push them into that direction, because as it is, it's simply far more lucrative to stay the current course.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Oct 24, 2018)

That we should trust science over a book that incorrectly states that our planet is just 6000 years young. Both sides agree on that.





Oh fucking wait.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 24, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I'm still trying to see if these claims, especially this one, are even true. This aside for now, the Nordic countries still seems to be the happiest places and have better services, so they must being doing something right.


Here’s a really good documentary that everyone should watch. They are not a socialist paradise like Bernie says and he is completely clueless of Sweden’s economic system.

Sweden use to be one of the poorest countries in the world. Poorer then the Congo. Then they embraced laissez fair free market capitalism, heavily de-regulated and became one of the richest countries in the world.

Then they screwed it up by introducing socialism and regulation, stunted economic growth and dropped down in economic ranking. Then they made some reform heavily deregulated and saved their country from getting worse.

Even socialism didn’t work in Sweden. If it didn’t work in Sweden then what makes people think it’ll work in the United States with more diversity of people.

@Xzi was for minimum wage, but Sweden doesn’t have minimum wage laws, and U.S. does.



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



Foxi4 said:


> The waiting times are a big problem, which is why people choose to go to private institutions instead. Routine surgery can be delayed for years, by which point a minor inconvenience can become a major issue - people don't have the time to wait. Healthcare is a difficult subject to discuss though as, realistically, it's an industry where the customer doesn't get a choice - they either buy in or they, potentially, die. The U.S. isn't much better - the insurance system is messed up big time, a result of years of government intervention and no free market principles regulating it.


There is a lot of statistics not taken into account when comparing U.S. to other countries like hidden costs.

There are lots of black markets in single payer countries, people pay extra to get ahead on the waiting list. A hidden cost not on statistics.

And since wait times are longer that is more time your out of work and loose money. Money lost can add up to more then what people in the U.S. pays. Another hidden cost.

And also people conflate with health care and medical care. If you are more reckless with your life, like people in the U.S., reckless driving and doings drugs, then this will bring down life expectancy. This is something out of medical systems control and not because of a poor system. This can affect statistics a bit lowering U.S. life expectancy.

Government run systems are also less efficient and more expensive. Canada Healh system is expected to ballon up in costs in the future taking up even more of the countries money.

But ya government intervention does screw up things.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Oct 24, 2018)

Both sides hate Russia and want to go to war with half the world


----------



## Delerious (Oct 24, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I have a question for the right wing:
> 
> Just how much degrees (celcius) ARE you okay with the earth warming?
> 
> ...



Depends on who you talk to. A lot of conservatives have warmed up (pun) to the idea that global warming is real.




CORE said:


> They Love Money  and Spin Bullshit for Praise.



This, 100%.



Xzi said:


> It's a corporatist hellhole specifically because it _is_ a free market and corporations can do whatever they want to choke out competition.  Stop pretending like CEOs would give out pay raises from the goodness of their hearts if the government would just let them.  That's already allowed and it isn't happening.  Best you'll get is a pay raise from places like Amazon, and then a discontinuation of bonuses and holiday pay to balance out the raise.  Corporations are not loyal to workers any more, they haven't been since the 50s or 60s.  Nor do they care about finding the 'best' people for the job, everybody is replaceable.



It's true. Capitalism might as well just be called Corporatism at this point. Or you can put it how my grandpappy used to: "Capitalism these days is nothing more than the worship of capital (money)."


(Edit: Grammar)


----------



## SG854 (Oct 25, 2018)

Delerious said:


> Depends on who you talk to. A lot of conservatives have warmed up (pun) to the idea that global warming is real.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Every country in the world is capitalist. The Soviet Union is capitalist. They have large capital which is controlled by the state.

The differences from country to country  is who controls the capital.

Not all countries that is capitalist has freedom. Countries that don’t have Competitive Capitalism has the bad qualities you’re talking about. But countries that have freedom has capitalism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 25, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> That we should trust science over a book that incorrectly states that our planet is just 6000 years young. Both sides agree on that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gross mischaracterisation of the religious right. No sane person treats the Bible literally, those who do belong in mental institutions. The Bible is a set of prescriptions to have a good life, it's a collection of moralistic stories that are supposed to help people in decision making, and it's good enough to have survived a 2000+ year long test of time. Much of it is out of date contemporarily, which is why you have to treat it with some reason and common sense, but overall it's a pretty good recipie for a successful life.


----------



## CORE (Oct 25, 2018)

The Left Perspective = There is no GOD only government that is god.

The Right Perspective = GOD is real and we kill in his name and for you to give us money in his name.

Your Both F***ing Wrong!


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2018)

CORE said:


> The Left Perspective = There is no GOD only government that is god.
> 
> The Right Perspective = GOD is real and we kill in his name and for you to give us money in his name.
> 
> Your Both F***ing Wrong!



That's extreme


----------



## CORE (Oct 25, 2018)

That's Truth

Extreme..... ECW. ECW.. ECW...


----------



## Viri (Oct 25, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Get rid of politics section on GBAtemp. This should be a gaming centric site.


Or prevent it from showing up in the recent content. At least give people the option to hide it. I don't mind politics, but I do understand why people who go to a gaming site, do not want to see politics. Some detest politics, and use gaming as an escapism.


----------



## CORE (Oct 25, 2018)

Viri said:


> Or prevent it from showing up in the recent content. At least give people the option to hide it. I don't mind politics, but I do understand why people who go to a gaming site, do not want to see politics. Some detest politics, and use gaming as an escapism.



Thank You Someone Understands my point.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 25, 2018)

absolutly nothing cause some right extremeist tried to kill multiple democrats today.....and you can point you fingers at one man for inciting such violence (he may have even had something to do with it indirectly)


----------



## CORE (Oct 25, 2018)

@chrisrlink Same goes for Left extremists.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 25, 2018)

i'm not gonna sit here and argue but in my experiance i see no leftist terrorist actions against the right especially at this mangnatude most of them are anarchist that want the downfall of our governement entirely and would murder anyone regardless of political affiliation right ones (mostly alt right) has Neo Nazi's and KKK (and minor groups)


----------



## CORE (Oct 25, 2018)

@chrisrlink "i'm not gonna sit here and argue"

Neither am I it a lot of crap.


----------



## Viri (Oct 25, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> absolutly nothing cause some right extremeist tried to kill multiple democrats today


So, how many bombs were found?


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 25, 2018)

CNN Time warner Bill/Hillary clinton and Obama George Soros (a democratic liberal billionare who donates to the dems frmr AG so about six (so far) )


----------



## SG854 (Oct 25, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> CNN Time warner Bill/Hillary clinton and Obama George Soros (a democratic liberal billionare who donates to the dems frmr AG so about six (so far) )


Who the F is George Soros?
And why did he donate $246,637,217 to the Women's March.

And how the F does he have this much money to throw around.
And what the F does he get out of it.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 25, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> CNN Time warner Bill/Hillary clinton and Obama George Soros (a democratic liberal billionare who donates to the dems frmr AG so about six (so far) )


The investigation just started. I can tell you another thing Left and Right agree on and that is they believe without a doubt _*the other guy did it*_. I have yet to decide for myself based on speculation or accusation. Even so, the party that the culprit(s) affiliate with *will still believe the other guy set this up*. Just like they did with James Fields when they said he was being chased by left wing attackers as the reason he plowed into that crowd. Extremism has no place in society.

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



SG854 said:


> Who the F is George Soros?
> And why did he donate $246,637,217 to the Women's March.
> 
> And how the F does he have this much money to throw around.
> And what the F does he get out of it.


I read he's funding money through others for the migrant caravan from Honduras.


----------



## CORE (Oct 25, 2018)

He is an Evil Scum Bag!

And F***ing around with Brexit.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 25, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> The investigation just started. I can tell you another thing Left and Right agree on and that is they believe without a doubt _*the other guy did it*_. I have yet to decide for myself based on speculation or accusation. Even so, the party that the culprit(s) affiliate with *will still believe the other guy set this up*. Just like they did with James Fields when they said he was being chased by left wing attackers as the reason he plowed into that crowd. Extremism has no place in society.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


He's funding all kinds of leftist groups. Its kinda funny the huge amount of money he's throwing around.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 25, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> i'm not gonna sit here and argue but in my experiance i see no leftist terrorist actions against the right especially at this mangnatude most of them are anarchist that want the downfall of our governement entirely and would murder anyone regardless of political affiliation right ones (mostly alt right) has Neo Nazi's and KKK (and minor groups)


So you mean to say that a Bernie Sanders supporter *didn't* shoot a bunch of people at the 2017 Congressional Baseball Game, including Steve Scalise? Six people were injured, including one person who was evacuated in critical condition. Something must be wrong with my memory, I must've imagined that this happened.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 25, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Sweden industries are heavily deregulated. They have less regulation then the United States. @Attacker3 as shown by the link he posted. So if U.S. should be like Sweden then that means less government regulation.


Precisely why I said we can't be exactly like Sweden.  For the most part their corporations are aware that they sink or swim along with the rest of the citizenry.  In the US corporations see themselves as the ruling class and don't really care what happens to the rest of us.  Thus the reason they're happy to help crash the economy every ten years or so, whenever we ease off the regulations a bit.  If it means increased profits in the short-term, then they'll feel like they're insulated from a bad US economy anyway.

I'd love it as much as the next guy if McDonald's and Wal-Mart decided to start paying a living wage to their employees without any outside pressure necessary.  They won't even do it _with_ outside pressure though, so it's just not realistic to expect that type of behavior from greedy US corporatists.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 25, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Precisely why I said we can't be exactly like Sweden.  For the most part their corporations are aware that they sink or swim along with the rest of the citizenry.  In the US corporations see themselves as the ruling class and don't really care what happens to the rest of us.  Thus the reason they're happy to help crash the economy every ten years or so, whenever we ease off the regulations a bit.  If it means increased profits in the short-term, then they'll feel like they're insulated from a bad US economy anyway.


The economy got worse through government intervention and regulation, not the free market.
Government was responsible for prolonging Great Depression and for the 2008 Recession.

We had a similar Stock Market Crash in 1987 that was comparable to the crash of the Great Depression. President did nothing to fix it and nothing bad happened.

I don't see how ruining the economy will benefit them. They get dragged down too.
What would you qualify the ruling class? How much income you would have to earn?

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



Xzi said:


> Precisely why I said we can't be exactly like Sweden.  For the most part their corporations are aware that they sink or swim along with the rest of the citizenry.  In the US corporations see themselves as the ruling class and don't really care what happens to the rest of us.  Thus the reason they're happy to help crash the economy every ten years or so, whenever we ease off the regulations a bit.  If it means increased profits in the short-term, then they'll feel like they're insulated from a bad US economy anyway.
> 
> I'd love it as much as the next guy if McDonald's and Wal-Mart decided to start paying a living wage to their employees without any outside pressure necessary.  They won't even do it _with_ outside pressure though, so it's just not realistic to expect that type of behavior from greedy US corporatists.


Most McDonalds workers are teenagers and young adults living with their parents. Raising minimum wage are sort of like tariffs, it prices certain people out that don't produce what the minimum wage is, it eliminates competition. And It raises unemployment. They also loose out on experience to move up the economic ladder.

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

Heres a recent video that came out a few days ago what $15 minimum wage laws did in New York for car wash.
Black markets formed. Many business shut down. And they were forced to automate.


----------



## CORE (Oct 25, 2018)

Just out of curiosity all those Hilary supporters here did you get your favor from Madonna maybe even have a Poll.



I mean I have to be honest no one on the Right offered such a Favor but did She deliver? because Trump seems to be delivering on his promises Making America Great Again if only UK had a strong leader to do same.

Oh and by the way The Revolution has already Happened The People Voted For Trump.
Brexit is in the works but unfortunately we have traitors in UK Government as everywhere does.
As for women being at the top and Equal Rights what about Marine Le Pen and how Jealous you all seem to be over Melania and Trumps Daughters and im not gonna get into the sick shit you post about Trumps young son.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 25, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The economy got worse through government intervention and regulation, not the free market.
> Government was responsible for prolonging Great Depression and for the 2008 Recession.


On the 2008 crash we just fundamentally disagree.  The cause was was private banks, housing lenders, and the stock market playing fast and loose with junk stocks/bonds that had bundled in unaffordable (predatory) mortgages.  Government _did_ de-regulate too much up to that point, but it was corporations pushing for that de-regulation throughout the years.  Proving once again that they can't be trusted to act responsibly when they have oversight coming only from themselves.



SG854 said:


> Most McDonalds workers are teenagers and young adults living with their parents.


That hasn't been true for roughly a decade.  I see middle age and even elderly individuals working McD's all the time.  They're half of the available employment in some more rural towns, the other half being Wal-Mart.  Additionally, every dollar they underpay their employees is money that taxpayers as a whole have to make up for in the form of welfare and food stamps.



SG854 said:


> Heres a recent video that came out a few days ago what $15 minimum wage laws did in New York for car wash.
> Black markets formed. Many business shut down. And they were forced to automate.


I don't think even $15/hr would be enough to live on in New York unless you live in a cardboard box.  That said, this means nothing because it's a car wash.  A good portion of those are already automated or self-serve and have been for some time.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 25, 2018)

Xzi said:


> On the 2008 crash we just fundamentally disagree. The cause was was private banks, housing lenders, and the stock market playing fast and loose with junk stocks/bonds that had bundled in unaffordable (predatory) mortgages.


If there was no government backed Fannie May and Freddie Mac then they would have never done the predatory lending in the first place.
If government stayed out and didn't promise to bail them out, and didn't force regulations to meet racial quotas that started this whole thing in the first place, then none of this would have been possible. Banks were regulated and intervened by government. They weren't a total free market.

And I don't see how it's predatory for free market banks to lend money they will never get back. Thats not a smart business decision.
Watch out for those free market capitalist that lend money to people with bad credit that won't pay any money back to the banks. Ooooooo!
Halloween is coming up right



Xzi said:


> I don't think even $15/hr would be enough to live on in New York unless you live in a cardboard box. That said, this means nothing because it's a car wash. A good portion of those are already automated or self-serve.


If you want to make New York affordable you don't raise minimum wage because that just causes unemployment to go up. Get government out of the housing market. Get rid of land restriction laws that raises the price of land because of supply and demand.

And also get rid of rent control laws that artificially lowers the price of housing. It doesn't benefit the poor, it instead benefits upper income brackets because its cheaper housing for them. And lower prices causes housing to be unprofitable. So people build unecessary luxury housing because they are exempt from price control, which then means more expensive rent.



Xzi said:


> That hasn't been true for roughly a decade. I see middle age and even elderly individuals working McD's all the time. They're half of the available employment in some more rural towns. Additionally, every dollar they underpay their employees is money that taxpayers as a whole have to make up for in the form of welfare and food stamps.


If they are still working at Mcdonalds at middle age then I would question the persons life choices rather then Mcdonalds. Only 3% of people above 24 yrs earn minimum wage.

And McDonalds offers all kinds of scholarship opportunities and tuition assistant programs people can take advantage of.
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/careers/training-and-education.html

Wait, they are half of the available employment in rural towns? What do you mean by this? Half of McDonalds workers are middle aged?
Why don't they just get another job. With a high school diploma, 20+ yrs? of fast food experience, why don't they move to a better paying fast food place or restaurant. They are not taking advantage of work opportunities and educational opportunities they have. Immigrants that come to this country with very little other then the clothes on their back are able to make decent pay, send their kids to college and some open businesses within 1 generation. I really question whether these middle aged fast food workers are very bright.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 25, 2018)

SG854 said:


> If there was no government backed Fannie May and Freddie Mac then they would have never done the predatory lending in the first place.
> If government stayed out and didn't promise to bail them out, and didn't force regulations to meet racial quotas that started this whole thing in the first place, then none of this would have been possible. Banks were regulated and intervened by government. They weren't a total free market.
> 
> And I don't see how it's predatory for free market banks to lend money they will never get back. Thats not a smart business decision.
> ...


Your first paragraph is completely wrong; the second is interesting (I'll get to that).

Fannie May and Freddie Mac, along with a few others (Bear Sterns, IIRC) weren't initially backed, and were never intended to be either. But it was Lehman Brother's bankruptcy that showed the world that the financial sector was so interwoven that the downfall of one company was basically like one domino falling down: it brought down a lot of others. All over the world, governments were quickly forced in an enormous hold-up: either buy up their assets - even though they were openly known to be toxic - or watch the entire financial world go down.
The ugly truth is that before this came to light, banks were so badly regulated that it was a dead letter. Rating bureaus like standard & poor at best had a few well-meaning clerics doing the tasks banks allowed them to do. I remember one hearing where someone said that it was just him and a handful of colleagues overseeing the entirety of all wall street transactions, with no decisive power whatsoever. It's no coincidence that Adam McKay portrayed them as blind men in the movie The big short. Joris Luyendijk (a local writer) used the analogy of a flying airplane that no longer had a pilot.

The whole problem was that by the deregulation, there had been no difference between insurances and savings. While both are done in "banks", the merging of the two made as much sense as a normal household merging with its neighboring casino. For as long as the casino keeps winning, it's a nice idea: the next door house provide some extra cash and as long as the casino makes a profit, they both profit. Unfortunately, the analogy is flawed because banks told house owners that their investments were safe whereas they were in effect a complicated gamble. It's been ten years, but we still have a major lawsuit because a bank that had to be saved flat out lied to people that their savings were safe...until it went up in the 2008 chaos.


If you ask me, there's certainly something criminally wrong with banks lending money they "know they won't get back". I mean...it only creates problems where there were none before: pretty much everyone thinks that they will be the ones paying back the mortgage. It's especially problematic because they at the same time pretend to be the objective source to verify whether or not they can afford it in the first place.
However, that's not where the crux of the situation lies. Banks assumed they would always make a profit from a sold house. Either they profited because the owner payed everything back (plus interest, obviously). Or they profited because the owner _couldn't_ pay everything, and they got to sell the house. This, of course, hinged on the assumption that houses would never lose in value. Which they did.
and that's where the real crime really is: they used their assumption as certainty. Say they have 100'000 dollars. Some guy (A) comes along and loans it. The bank, at that time, realistically has zero dollars. However, they argued not unrealistically that because they would ALWAYS recover, they could just as well write out a loan for 100'000 dollars to guy B. That's the thing that should've been legal (heck...even counterfeiting), but they treated these 'I owe you''s, so to say, as a means to generate more money. Not in "just" lending the same sort of money to every Joe that wanted a loan, but in large investments where they bundled them together and traded them up to the point where nobody could find the actual money in it anymore.

I agree with you that these banks should've been punished for their actions. And hard, as well. I've got from media sources that I trust that in the first days, they were genuinely scared that this would be the case. But then their lobbyists convinced governments about the upcoming chaos that would ensue (and make no mistake: pretty much everyone's savings was on the line, so worldwide riots were far from an unrealistic scenario), and banks were saved instead. Banks didn't knew they were too big to fail before...but they do now.

And that's why I'm more scared of hedgefund managers, financial CEO's and the like than anything halloween-related. they're not evil per se. They're just too greedy and short-sighted to allow to be unregulated. Yet your line of "it's the government's faul" thinking is becoming more commonplace in, ironically enough, the US government.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 25, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> What I did say, however, was that *the rate of increment* in technology improvements need to grow, and needs to grow fast. An exponential growth that is typical for some phenomenon (AMONG WHICH Moore's law) would certainly help in the long run, but we're really running out of time to even achieve that.


Moore's law has to do with transistors doubling every two years in semiconductors. It has nothing to do with anything other than that. Why are you talking about stuff you have no idea about? That just looks bad and puts a taint on all of what you're saying.



Taleweaver said:


> You haven't checked that link I wrote.


Wow, my fucking god. Of course I didn't watch your fucking stupid video, because I knew that they'd probably misrepresent the fucking data and fearmonger like they always do. I went straight to the god damn source and looked into it, and it said that shit would happen, but nothing really cataclysmic. Hell, I could link you a video that says the exact opposite, that it's totally bullshit and stuff, but that doesn't make it right. That's why you go right to the source.




Taleweaver said:


> It's just that they need international laws to push them into that direction, because as it is, it's simply far more lucrative to stay the current course.


So tell me what laws would you put in place that would prevent people from being laid off. Oh wait, you admitted it's more lucrative to stay doing this. People are going to end up out of jobs because companies can't afford to keep as many people on payroll.

Not the mention the moral question of forcing private entities to do things, and the impact of more regulations on competition. People complain about the "free-market" in the USA, but with all the regulations they aren't even close. You're asking for even more to be put in place.

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



Xzi said:


> On the 2008 crash we just fundamentally disagree. The cause was was private banks, housing lenders, and the stock market playing fast and loose with junk stocks/bonds that had bundled in unaffordable (predatory) mortgages. Government _did_ de-regulate too much up to that point, but it was corporations pushing for that de-regulation throughout the years. Proving once again that they can't be trusted to act responsibly when they have oversight coming only from themselves.





Taleweaver said:


> If you ask me, there's certainly something criminally wrong with banks lending money they "know they won't get back". I mean...it only creates problems where there were none before: pretty much everyone thinks that they will be the ones paying back the mortgage. It's especially problematic because they at the same time pretend to be the objective source to verify whether or not they can afford it in the first place.



And guess what? If a bank in a free market gave out all it's money to people who couldn't pay it back, they'd go out of business. It's almost like having the government back them up isn't a free-market hmmMMMMMmmm

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



Taleweaver said:


> : either buy up their assets - even though they were openly known to be toxic - or watch the entire financial world go down.


You make it sound like everything would be nuked and shit. It might last a little while, but it would end up going back to normal.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 25, 2018)

SG854 said:


> If there was no government backed Fannie May and Freddie Mac then they would have never done the predatory lending in the first place.


If it's not specifically regulated against, corporations will always take advantage of any loopholes they can.  The government did not tell them to loan to people incapable of paying them back, that was a private business decision from start to finish.  They knew they'd get a couple checks and that was it, but they didn't care because they could just pass the junk stocks/bonds on to someone else.



SG854 said:


> And I don't see how it's predatory for free market banks to lend money they will never get back. Thats not a smart business decision.


See above.  They were mitigating the risk to themselves (or so they believed) by bundling bad mortgages with other things to disguise them inside of stocks/bonds.  A lot of people made a lot of money by selling what they knew was garbage before the crash finally came.



SG854 said:


> Watch out for those free market capitalist that lend money to people with bad credit that won't pay any money back to the banks. Ooooooo!


This stuff is way too complex for your free market Joe Schmo.  Banks and other large corporations get to set their own regulations, and thus they know exactly how to game those regulations.  It wasn't the first time it's happened and it won't be the last.



SG854 said:


> If you want to make New York affordable you don't raise minimum wage because that just causes unemployment to go up. Get government out of the housing market. Get rid of land restriction laws that raises the price of land because of supply and demand.


You're living in a fantasy world if you believe every penny saved by landlords is a penny in savings they pass on to tennants.  Say they did everything you're suggesting, and then the landlords raise rent.  What are you gonna do about it?  There's no rule saying they can't.  All you've done at that point is further line the pockets of people who are already rich.  In fact, that's the scam of free market ideology as a whole.  The vast majority of citizens don't give a shit about the stock market because its only real purpose is to make the rich richer.



SG854 said:


> Wait, they are half of the available employment in rural towns? What do you mean by this? Half of McDonalds workers are middle aged?


No, I mean that some rural towns have a McDonald's and a Wal-Mart, maybe a couple gas stations, and that's it.  So McDonald's provides at least a fourth of the employment in those towns, if not more.



SG854 said:


> If they are still working at Mcdonalds at middle age then I would question the persons life choices rather then Mcdonalds.  Only 3% of people above 24 yrs earn minimum wage.


Service jobs are 77% of employment in the US, not everybody has the option of choosing anything else.  And "above minimum wage" is $7.75/hr or more, below $10/hr you're going to need some form of supplementary income in just about every part of the country.  Again I don't understand how you can blindly trust corporations to do the right thing in a totally free market when they're already making taxpayers foot the bill for the employees they underpay.  Too many places are now switching to a tip system so they can lower wages that way as well.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 26, 2018)

Since I'm falling behind, I just want say that Sweden has a bigger labor union than us. If that means anything.


----------



## Viri (Oct 26, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Since I'm falling behind, I just want say that Sweden has a bigger labor union than us. If that means anything.


I can't keep up with a lot of these threads, because when I go to bed, a ton of posts are posted while I sleep!


----------



## Captain_N (Oct 26, 2018)

Lets Play some Political Kombat 12. Pick your fighter


----------



## CORE (Oct 26, 2018)

Here Check this out this my Opinion and Damn they Nailed it again God Bless Them.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 26, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Moore's law has to do with transistors doubling every two years in semiconductors. It has nothing to do with anything other than that. Why are you talking about stuff you have no idea about? That just looks bad and puts a taint on all of what you're saying.




You have got to be kidding me.

...

Ah, screw this. If you don't want to listen, then so be it.


----------



## thekarter104 (Oct 26, 2018)

*What do the Left and Right agree on?*

Up and down?


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 26, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> You have got to be kidding me.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ah, screw this. If you don't want to listen, then so be it.



"
*Moore's law* is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years. The observation is named after Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel, whose 1965 paper described a doubling every year in the number of components per integrated circuit,[2] and projected this rate of growth would continue for at least another decade.[3] In 1975,[4] looking forward to the next decade,[5] he revised the forecast to doubling every two years.[6][7][8] The period is often quoted as 18 months because of a prediction by Intel executive David House (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and the transistors being faster).[9]"
from wikipedia

im sorry that you're using terms you don't understand, but don't just give up once you get called out on them.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You're living in a fantasy world if you believe every penny saved by landlords is a penny in savings they pass on to tennants. Say they did everything you're suggesting, and then the landlords raise rent. What are you gonna do about it? There's no rule saying they can't. All you've done at that point is further line the pockets of people who are already rich. In fact, that's the scam of free market ideology as a whole.


But in order for this to be true then it would have to be true everywhere in the United States, its not. Houston and Dallas have cheaper housing prices. Coastal California and New York have expensive houses because of land restrictions. Places that don't have land restrictions are cheaper. It was government regulation that caused expensive housing.

https://www.heritage.org/government...lations-have-created-the-problem-unaffordable



Xzi said:


> The vast majority of citizens don't give a shit about the stock market because its only real purpose is to make the rich richer.



Same is true for prices for everyday items in San Francisco. Basic items are more expensive because of higher real estate. Higher prices are to make up for the more expensive land they bought, created by land restriction. There are bills businesses have to pay. Total costs for those same items in Northern California can range from a low $80 in the least expensive store, to $125 for the most expensive store. Even 3 different Safeway markets can range from $98 to $103.

Not only that there is cost of inventory. Cheapest stores has 49% of the items on their shopping lists in stock at any given time. While a store like Safeway can have 75% of their items in stock. The price differences are because they have a much larger inventory to manage, even when the items are the same from store to store.

Prices are not artificially set out of thin air to whatever they want. A way to know is competition. What they sell for compared to what others sell and area of locations to consider. Prices and Costs aren't the same thing either. This is why artificially setting prices low with government regulation has never worked and millions died. With government you can force businesses you think are evil price gougers to sell for lower prices but the costs to produce the items will still be the same. Someone has to pay those costs. Even if you subsidize to keep the prices low for the average consumer, the costs is still the same and has to be payed for somehow and its through our taxes.

If you think people are ripping you off in the housing market, well we have experiments of that with rent control laws. New York and San Francisco has some of the strongest rent control to keep prices affordable, and instead of cheaper housing they are some of the most expensive places to live and have the highest homeless rates even though they have enough housing space for these people. Quality of housing declined compared to non rent control places, they have more plumbing problems and aren't up kept. This is a testament that they aren't greedily price gouging like people think they are. I don't think people that complain about greed knows what its like to run a business.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Your first paragraph is completely wrong


They were government created agencies. They were backed because they ran on the promise government would bail them out in a crisis through our taxes.
They were able to buy up mortgages from banks, and with that money were able to loan money right away.

It was liberal Democrats that were led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, for years denied that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis. They even refused requests from the Bush Administration to set up agency to regulate them.

It was these same liberal democrats led by Dodd and Frank, who pushed Fannie May and Freddie Mac to further promote sub prime mortgages, which was the main cause of the crisis.

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President, and Bush's Secretary of Treasure, all warned about the dangers of sub prime mortgages. And yet they blame the crisis on the Bush Administration and Right Wing Politics and De-Regulation.

They blame it on the free market and yet government pressured them to give out sub prime mortgages, through the Community Reinvestment Act, and there was threats of legal law suits by Attorney General Janet Reno if banks didn't meet the quotas they imposed, with statistics they were forced to provide to government regulatory agencies on who was getting loans and who wasn't. Does this sound like a Free Market?


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Since I'm falling behind, I just want say that Sweden has a bigger labor union than us. If that means anything.


Scandinavians do much better under the American economic system then the Scandinavian one.

Median Income of Scandinavian Americans is 20% higher then your average US income. It's true that poverty rates are lower in Scandinavia then the US. But poverty rates among Scandinavian Americans are lower then those in Scandinavia. Which suggest that there is a cultural influence, and the US system benefits them more.

GDP of Swedish Americans is 39% higher then Swedes living in Sweden.
GDP of Danish Americans is 37% higher then Danes in Denmark.
GDP of Finnish Americans is 47% higher then Fins living in Finland.
They are affluent in America.

Danish Americans standard of living is 55% higher then Danes in Denmark.
Swedish Americans standard of living is 53% higher then Swedes in Sweden.
Finish Americans have a standard of living 59% higher then Fins in Finland.

They have half the unemployment rate in America then their relatives across the Atlantic.
And Swedes in America immigrated when Sweden use to be one of the poorest places in the world looking for better opportunity. So this wasn't your cream of the crop. But they do better then their cousins in Scandinavian countries. America has great opportunity and income mobility. It's whether you take advantage of it or not.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...do-danish-americans-do-better-than-danes.html
https://ime.bg/bg/articles/mityt-za-uspeha-na-skandinavskata-socialna-dyrjava/


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 26, 2018)

Yet, every time I look it up, the Nordic countries seems to be the most happiest overall. Part of that is probably because they have better services than us. Link

Not saying their system is perfect, but neither are ours.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 11, 2018)

@Taleweaver @Xzi

Just to show proof that i’m not making up that the Bush Administration was pushing for regulation. Barnie Frank was against Bush administrations regulation and was pushing to lower lending standards. Bush administration was pushing Congress hard to regulate Fannie and Freddie and called it a systemic risk. It sounds counter intuitive, regulating government regulators that were forcing more home ownership.



And here after the crisis Barnie Frank is blaming conservatives for pushing more homeownership on people, completely avoiding his role is the housing crisis. He’s a flat out liar.



I don’t know how people can watch these videos and still blame deregulation on conservatives and Bush administration when they were the ones pushing for it. Democratic Party are trying to rewrite history.

And if you don’t like that it’s Fox just because it’s fox, c-span also has footage you can find. I don’t trust politicians either democrats or conservatives because they both lie.


----------



## DaniPoo (Nov 11, 2018)

Money is power...


----------



## mattytrog (Nov 11, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Get rid of politics section on GBAtemp. This should be a gaming centric site.


But it is in the current affairs / politics section. I think its a welcome break from all the Anime pictures of little girls that the freaks on here seem to have.

What do the left and right agree on? Not much.

We like smart devices.

However right-leaning people love any device. No blind devotion to anyone.

Lefty luvvies love Apple. Blind devotion... Then they found out old Jobsy was shafting them from beyond the grave with the "battery saving" feature 

While at the same time protesting against big business and big corporations and capitalism. Moaning their little asses off supping a milky Latte in Starbucks.

Nope. Don`t agree on anything. The extreme left and right nutters are as bad as each other. Two sides of a very bad penny.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 11, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> But it is in the current affairs / politics section. I think its a welcome break from all the Anime pictures of little girls that the freaks on here seem to have.
> 
> What do the left and right agree on? Not much.
> 
> ...


I tried to stay away from politics but I keep getting sucked back in, lol.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 11, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I don’t know how people can watch these videos and still blame deregulation on conservatives and Bush administration when they were the ones pushing for it. Democratic Party are trying to rewrite history.


GWB and the Republicans were the ones in charge, the ones who made the decisions, regardless of what Barney Frank said or didn't say.  Ultimately the most responsibility falls to the banks and financial institutions.  Nobody told them to lend to people who couldn't afford loans, but that was always going to be the result if it wasn't specifically regulated against.



mattytrog said:


> However right-leaning people love any device. No blind devotion to anyone.
> 
> Lefty luvvies love Apple.


The fuck are you talking about?  Phone choice has nothing to do with political affiliation.  If anything I'd say more conservatives use Apple products as a status symbol, or just because they're old and tech illiterate.


----------



## mattytrog (Nov 11, 2018)

Xzi said:


> GWB and the Republicans were the ones in charge, the ones who made the decisions, regardless of what Barney Frank said or didn't say.  Ultimately the most responsibility falls to the banks and financial institutions.  Nobody told them to lend to people who couldn't afford loans, but that was always going to be the result if it wasn't specifically regulated against.
> 
> 
> The fuck are you talking about?  Phone choice has nothing to do with political affiliation.  If anything I'd say more conservatives use Apple products as a status symbol, or just because they're old and tech illiterate.


I`m a conservative. I`m not (that) old and not tech illiterate. So pick those fucking bones out. 

Have a read of the Grauniad Guardian. Their endorsement of anything Apple is legendary.

But, I digress...


----------



## Xzi (Nov 11, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> I`m a conservative. I`m not (that) old and not tech illiterate. So pick those fucking bones out.
> 
> Have a read of the Grauniad Guardian. Their endorsement of anything Apple is legendary.


I wasn't referring to you specifically, but Republicans are quite a bit older on average.

The Guardian doesn't speak for Democrats as a whole, and (obviously) they're far from the only ones that advertise Apple products.  Capitalists and capitalism in general love Apple.  They wouldn't be in the surplus position they are now if it was only one party buying their goods.


----------



## emigre (Nov 11, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> But it is in the current affairs / politics section. I think its a welcome break from all the Anime pictures of little girls that the freaks on here seem to have.
> 
> What do the left and right agree on? Not much.
> 
> ...



I just laughed at this. Genuinely makes no sense.


----------



## Rabbid4240 (Nov 11, 2018)

They all agree that twix is fucking awesome.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 12, 2018)

SG854 said:


> @Taleweaver @Xzi
> 
> Just to show proof that i’m not making up that the Bush Administration was pushing for regulation. Barnie Frank was against Bush administrations regulation and was pushing to lower lending standards. Bush administration was pushing Congress hard to regulate Fannie and Freddie and called it a systemic risk. It sounds counter intuitive, regulating government regulators that were forcing more home ownership.
> 
> ...



I think we can chalk up "Fox news" as something left and right cannot agree on.

The right think it's an objective media source.
The left (as well as pretty much anyone outside US borders) think it's a conservative propaganda machine that doesn't hesitate to bend the truth or flat out lie if it helps their political side.


Who is this guy, anyway? Going by wikipedia, he was one of the 100+ democrats in the house of representatives during the crisis. If that's your "proof" that democrats as a party pushed deregulation, then it's pretty meager as evidence.


----------



## Viri (Dec 13, 2018)

I got it! The left and right can agree on disliking that shitty Youtube Rewind video!

https://gbatemp.net/threads/youtube-rewind-2018-becomes-most-disliked-video-on-youtube.526047/


----------



## Viri (Aug 21, 2019)

I got another one! I like to believe the left and right of the US stands with Hong Kong against the authoritarian CCP. Also, that Saudi Arabia and China being on the UN Human Right's council makes a mockery of it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 22, 2019)

Both political left and right agree that Trump wanting to buy Iceland was a joke.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 22, 2019)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> *Updated title: What do the Left, Center, Right agree on?*
> Nowadays things are getting more and more separated with politics but I can assure you there are more peace loving people than we see. I want to make light of the issue and ask, *What do we agree on?*
> Please don't harass people with opposite views. I want to discuss not fight. For myself, I want to say we agree on ALCOHOL! 21 should stay as the age to buy/consume!  Lord knows what would happen without it. <3



Foreign intervention & Proxy wars basically,  at least as far as DC Politicians of both sides go at least.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 22, 2019)

SexySpai said:


> They all agree that twix is fucking awesome.


Well, yes, but which one, the left or the right Twix?


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 22, 2019)

SexySpai said:


> They all agree that twix is fucking awesome.





Foxi4 said:


> Well, yes, but which one, the left or the right Twix?



Do we have to go back to "Raider" after November 1st?


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Do we have to go back to "Raider" after November 1st?


Hey! There was to be NO further negotiation after agreeing that there was to be no further negotiating!

...

Luckily, paragraph five section 23b stipulates the fair use of chocolate bars owned by Mars(c), thereby decreeing that Twix can retain its name both in, outside and even on top of the border between the UK and the EU.

I'm afraid I can't find sections on which one tastes best, though.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Aug 22, 2019)

Well, this highly depends on what specific definition of left and right you're talking about.

If I'll talk about my country, admittedly this tends to not be very difficult, since our government is basically _designed_ on the idea of compromise rather than winner takes all. 

For example, the fact that a child rapist was released on accident due to _severe_ miscommunications is something that pretty much got nonpartisan questions of "what the fuck", with the only notable difference being that the fascists party's second in command got a little into his own rape-fantasy during the discussion, which caused a minor spat (the fascists party defended the rather appalling behavior from this politician, everyone else told them to eat shit).

If we talk about the US... much more difficult, but let's just stick with stuff that gets bipartisan support, and again, for stuff that isn't Israel, I had to dig a little bit. Both republicans and democrats apparently oppose the Trump administrations efforts to eliminate the IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services), so I suppose that counts.

On broader concepts, you'll find that both the left and the right in their simplest forms put the desire to be free to do what you want at the forefront. The biggest difference is of course the methods in which this is approached. (The left wants to do this by making everyone equal through government support, the right wants to do this by deregulating as much as possible and just letting the economy sort it out.) 

If you go to the extremer ends of the spectrum, you end up in the realm of authoritarianism, which to say the least, no matter what side you look, that's not something you'd want to have happen, and the characteristics of those kinds of governments tend to _conceptually_ be similar, although in execution, I'll freely say that the extreme right end of this all scares me much more than a possible left wing authoritarian government (and to be clear: I oppose both of those styles of governments, it's just a comparison on which turd is shinier.)


----------



## Rabbid4240 (Aug 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, yes, but which one, the left or the right Twix?


The up and down twix


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 22, 2019)

Left and Right.. sounds like which sport team do you support.

I don't align with either but both sides tend to have good ideas sometimes although because of the sides thing, they won't admit it.

Conservatives don't conserve anything and occasionally label someone "Leftist" when they don't like what he/she is saying. Liberals don't like what someone says so censor him/her.

They're more alike than they realize.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 22, 2019)

Actually giving a serious answer now: Speaking as a Conservative (Libertarian in particular) we both agree that Incel ideology is a plague


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Aug 22, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Left and Right.. sounds like which sport team do you support.
> 
> I don't align with either but both sides tend to have good ideas sometimes although because of the sides thing, they won't admit it.
> 
> ...


Be careful, it's easy to end up in a false ditchonomy there. Whilst horseshoe theory is somewhat true-ish in that both of the more extreme leaning mindsets edge towards authoritarianism and outright insanity, there's massive differences in peculiar for social issues and economic ones.

Truth be told, the scale of left vs right is a bit of a poor one anyways. The better option is an graph of authoritarianism vs libertarianism* on one axis and left vs right on the other.

*Although I'll also point out that there's plenty of issues with libertarianism.

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



LonelyPhantom said:


> Actually giving a serious answer now: Speaking as a Conservative (Libertarian in particular) we both agree that Incel ideology is a plague


Unfortunately, the_donald seems to embrace them.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 22, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Left and Right.. sounds like which sport team do you support.
> 
> I don't align with either but both sides tend to have good ideas sometimes although because of the sides thing, they won't admit it.
> 
> ...



While many would be left wing types of some of the modern strains are not opposed to a bit of censorship (something of a stark contrast to many older approaches and goals) I do have to note the traditional right wing censorship of various things that they don't agree with is still out there doing things. I think it was another thread around here that I mentioned using the American Family Association's 1 million moms project as a guide for things to watch and see, and we did have the amusing bit the other month where some people got it into their heads to get Netflix to cancel the latest Amazon-BBC series ( https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-...mens-amazon-promises-to-kill-stranger-things/ ), to say nothing of the latest go around on the matters of violence in games and films following the the latest demonstration of inability of some Americans to determine what is a firing range.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Aug 22, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> While many would be left wing types of some of the modern strains are not opposed to a bit of censorship (something of a stark contrast to many older approaches and goals) I do have to note the traditional right wing censorship of various things that they don't agree with is still out there doing things. I think it was another thread around here that I mentioned using the American Family Association's 1 million moms project as a guide for things to watch and see, and we did have the amusing bit the other month where some people got it into their heads to get Netflix to cancel the latest Amazon-BBC series ( https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-...mens-amazon-promises-to-kill-stranger-things/ ), to say nothing of the latest go around on the matters of violence in games and films following the the latest demonstration of inability of some Americans to determine what is a firing range.


Also, don't forget that movie that was cancelled because it made fun of Trump and he didn't like that. The name kinda shoots past me but there was a stink about it. Was by Sony I think?


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 23, 2019)

Everybody knows only dark chocolate twix matters, and if you don't agree then you're a dirty commie.


----------



## ClappyBird (Aug 24, 2019)

They agree to hate each other instead of overthrowning their government who are the ones who want to divide the people to make civil war so they can bring laws to remove freedom whenever they want. They think the the government care about them, but they never learn.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 24, 2019)

ClappyBird said:


> They agree to hate each other instead of overthrowning their government who are the ones who want to divide the people to make civil war so they can bring laws to remove freedom whenever they want. They think the the government care about them, but they never learn.


Nah one side definitely wants that more than the other.


----------

