# Bernie Sanders drops out of Presidential Race



## SG854 (Apr 8, 2020)

This was predictable since last year that he didn't have a chance. He wasn't doing very good.

Your thoughts?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...us/politics/bernie-sanders-drops-out.amp.html


----------



## Chary (Apr 8, 2020)

Hm. Wonder if Biden will be able to beat Trump. I kind of doubt it.

Was kinda rooting for Bernie, just cuz he at least seems to be trying new stuff, as opposed to the bland stuff we've seen year after year from typical politicians.


----------



## notimp (Apr 8, 2020)

'He wasnt doing very good'? Did you miss this thread:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/so-amer...candidates-drop-out-at-specific-spots.559323/

The way americas preelection system works is, that you need at least two centrist candidats, seriously wanting to compete for presidency, or you have no chances as a non establishment candidate.

In this years race four centrist candidates dropped out at the most opportune point for the remaining one to cash in their embasador posts and alike.

Its fixed theatre. And this year it was solely decided by when two other popular centrist candidates dropped out and who they gave endorcements to on the same day. (Right before most electoral votes are available, and at the right point - where this is still able to snowball. Because of the most assanine of voting systems - banking on more people seeing and being able to act on 'herd popularity'. You dont ask them a question, and then let them vote in secret - no, you ask them "who is popular" - and then stage events meaning to underly their popularity - while voting is still going on, and then you look at who voted already and tell the rest - well they think - they were about - this - popular, now who do you want to vote for.

The system is fixed - so if you can coordinate, and if there is no 'quarrel' between two viable frontrunners  - only centrist candidates win.)

And let me specify this - for absolutely no publically available reason. We dont know why everyone suddenly decided that Biden would become the most viable candidate.

Even media struggled immensely to contextualize any of it.

In the end they went with psychobabble. ('Biden had electability'.) Thats roughly the same as saying, that Jesus is love, and your body and blood. Means absolutely nothing - but stops your rational thought process, if you werent expecting it - and works flawlessly to convince people that can be convinced by suggestion alone.

(The majority of people doesnt want to understand something, they just want to know what the majority thinks, and then copy what they say. So 'electibility' it is.)

Sanders went from 'frontrunner' to 'no chance' in a day - without political reason given, reasoning, or any remarkable speeches, simply because people coordinated when two more likely candidates than Biden at that point, should drop out, and whom they should support.

If you think for a minute - Sanders went toe to toe with Clinton in the last elections, and only lost by a narrow margin after the DNC pulled all strings available. Biden is a guy that was picked by someone who needed a Mike Pence. Why is Sanders all of a sudden less 'electable'? Because someone said so?

Well - what was their (hopefully political) reasoning for that?

There was none. Oh, I understand...


----------



## morvoran (Apr 8, 2020)

I knew he wouldn't become the democrat nominee since he was an independent and socialist.  There was never any chance the DNC would let him be the nominee. 
On top of that, he was campaigning to people who do not go to the polls to vote and depend on their parents/government to do everything for them. 
I would say, "Better luck next time", but he will be way too old by then and still have the same chances of winning the nomination - none at all.


----------



## notimp (Apr 8, 2020)

morvoran said:


> I knew he wouldn't become the democrat nominee since he was an independent and socialist.


Last year he almost did, did you knew then as well?

But you are not wrong.

The 'socialist' campaign worked. But that was a smear campaign. He tried to own the term. No one said a thing, then they coordenated the drop outs and endorsements.


----------



## 30yoDoomer (Apr 8, 2020)

Ahem...No Refunds...ahem 

All ribbing aside, I do think the DNC did him dirty. Bernie and his message would have given Trump a good challenge - especially now with all the personal economic turmoil people are experiencing. Biden doesn't seem to generate much enthusiasm from actual human beings (ie not establishment media pundits/politicians), plus I think China owns a controlling stake in the Biden brand.


----------



## BORTZ (Apr 8, 2020)

No one is surprised. Biden will basically hand Trump the keys to another 4 years.


----------



## notimp (Apr 8, 2020)

Its not just the DNC - its the way the primaries are set up (for both parties). Its the rules. You'd be silly not to game them.


----------



## 30yoDoomer (Apr 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> Its not just the DNC - its the way the primaries are set up (for both parties). Its the rules. You'd be silly not to play them.


Yea it's a garbage system. It'd be fun if a strategic 3rd party run was plausible for either side, but nobody is willing to take the inevitable setback until things start to pan out. Even if a 3rd party didn't emerge, you could take the establishment party hostage by acting as a spoiler until your demands/reforms were met.


----------



## notimp (Apr 8, 2020)

Oh and by the way - you only need "two centrist candidates seriously competing" throughout the first third of the race.

Not the entirety of it. The first third. Because the optimal point to fix this - as it snowballs - is after the first third.

(Because not only do people vote, after other people already voted and they get to know the result of that - no, there is an unequal amount of votes available at certain points throughout the race, so the most important ones to gain are in the first third of everyone voting.

This system, i tell you..  )


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 8, 2020)

And the DNC just handed 4 more years to Trump.


----------



## IncredulousP (Apr 8, 2020)

What a shitty timeline we live in.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2020)

I have no idea why people are surprised at all, this was a forgone conclusion from Day 1. He's laughing all the way to the bank, it's time to buy another summer home.


----------



## Thunder Hawk (Apr 9, 2020)

Rip Bernie. Got screwed over again. Vote for Trump or just stay at home. Don't vote for Biden.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2020)

Thunder Hawk said:


> Rip Bernie. Got screwed over again. Vote for Trump or just stay at home. Don't vote for Biden.


The Democrats will have an extremely hard time convincing the average Joe (pun intended) that Biden isn't in a state of rapid decline in terms of his mental faculties. His recent public appearances have all been disasters. The man can't string a sentence together, he either babbles nonsensically or recounts bizarre, mostly fictional anecdotes. He had his fair share of gaffes during his term as VP, but now it's just embarrassing. Democrat voters should give him a warm blanket, not their votes. I'm not even being funny, at this point a vote for Biden is irresponsible.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 9, 2020)

Thunder Hawk said:


> Rip Bernie. Got screwed over again. Vote for Trump or just stay at home. Don't vote for Biden.


I am voting for Vermin Supreme! Let’s go full clown show!


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am voting for Vermin Supreme! Let’s go full clown show!


Aye, that I can approve of, as long as you make things funnier rather than worse.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Apr 9, 2020)

Trump will be re-elected now


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 9, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Aye, that I can approve of, as long as you make things funnier rather than worse.


I am in it for the free ponies for everyone!


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am in it for the free ponies for everyone!


We will not be a nation in dentures any longer. Zombies belong in power plants - that's green energy.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2020)

The primary was rigged by the DNC yet again, this time by forcing every non-Biden candidate out of the race just before Super Tuesday and bribing them all for endorsements.  Even the one other "progressive" candidate who was in the race, Warren, did her fair share of damage by refusing to endorse Sanders.  Also doesn't help that the Democratic party puts so much stock into the primaries in deep red states which are guaranteed to vote Trump in November.  As much as I wanted to hold on to any shred of hope, the bottom line is that there cannot be true democracy with a two party system.  Thus the reason many founding fathers warned against it.  I guess accelerationism is the final path left to us; perhaps after this country completes its descent into a fascist police state we'll finally get people to wake up and enact real change through revolution.



Foxi4 said:


> I have no idea why people are surprised at all, this was a forgone conclusion from Day 1. He's laughing all the way to the bank, it's time to buy another summer home.


Give me a fucking break.  He's an old man on a Senator's salary, if he didn't have a decent nest egg saved up by this point you'd be attacking him for being fiscally irresponsible.  It's obvious there's no leftist politician who could possibly win you over, so pretending otherwise is asinine.



Foxi4 said:


> The Democrats will have an extremely hard time convincing the average Joe (pun intended) that Biden isn't in a state of rapid decline in terms of his mental faculties. His recent public appearances have all been disasters. The man can't string a sentence together, he either babbles nonsensically or recounts bizarre, mostly fictional anecdotes. He had his fair share of gaffes during his term as VP, but now it's just embarrassing. Democrat voters should give him a warm blanket, not their votes. I'm not even being funny, at this point a vote for Biden is irresponsible.


Dems are running a rapist with dementia against an incumbent who's a rapist with severe mental deficiencies.  This is a no-win scenario for America and Americans, it's only a can't-lose scenario for corporations.

For anyone searching for an alternative, I suggest doing some research on Gloria La Riva.  I'm not sure she'll be on the ballot in every state, but I intend to vote her for president and Democrat for every race down ballot.  I expect Biden to win my state/the popular vote and lose the election regardless, same thing that happened with Clinton.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 9, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> We will not be a nation in dentures any longer. Zombies belong in power plants - that's green energy.


Ponies, teeth, zombies, vote for the only tyrant you can trust, vote Vermin Supreme.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2020)

Xzi said:


> The primary was rigged by the DNC yet again, this time by forcing every non-Biden candidate out of the race just before Super Tuesday and bribing them all for endorsements.  Even the one other "progressive" candidate who was in the race, Warren, did her fair share of damage by refusing to endorse Sanders.  Also doesn't help that the Democratic party puts so much stock into the primaries in deep red states which are guaranteed to vote Trump in November.  As much as I wanted to hold on to any shred of hope, the bottom line is that there cannot be true democracy with a two party system.  Thus the reason many founding fathers warned against it.  I guess accelerationism is the final path left to us; perhaps after this country completes its descent into a fascist police state we'll finally get people to wake up and enact real change through revolution.
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break.  He's an old man on a Senator's salary, if he didn't have a decent nest egg saved up by this point you'd be attacking him for being fiscally irresponsible.  It's obvious there's no leftist politician who could possibly win you over, so pretending otherwise is asinine.
> ...


I sure hope you have evidence for those claims, otherwise you're slandering both. I understand that you were knee deep in the Bernie camp, but what's done is done - it's just politics, relax. Out of all the DNC candidates I actually had an affinity for Bernie since he seems to truly believe in his vision of America. It's a horrible, dystopian vision, but at the very least he's somewhat genuine about it. When Warren and Sanders propose the exact same ridiculous level of taxation, Warren sugarcoats it as something people won't even notice whereas Bernie says it how it is - "I'm going to tax you all more, but I'll give you this in return and I think it's worth it". It takes some guts to be forward with your base when you know your proposal is unpopular, and Sanders had that. I may be diametrically opposed to everything he represents and I may find his politics to be immoral and reprehensible, but I can still respect honesty.


----------



## zer01717 (Apr 9, 2020)

Maybe off topic, but seeing as he was a prime supporter of it can someone please explain why you guys do not want universal health care? I feel like you guys need it more then ever now...


----------



## SG854 (Apr 9, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I sure hope you have evidence for those claims, otherwise you're slandering both. I understand that you were knee deep in the Bernie camp, but what's done is done - it's just politics, relax. Out of all the DNC candidates I actually had an affinity for Bernie since he seems to truly believe in his vision of America. It's a horrible, distopian vision, but at the very least he's somewhat genuine about it. When Warren and Sanders propose the exact same ridiculous level of taxation, Warren sugarcoats it as something people won't even notice whereas Bernie says it how it is - "I'm going to tax you all more, but I'll give you this in return and I think it's worth it". It takes some guts to be forward with your base when you know your proposal is unpopular, and Sanders had that. I may be diametrically opposed to everything he represents and I may find his politics to be immoral and reprehensible, but I can still respect honesty.


I feel like violence is going to break out. Just like last time Bernie lost.

People don't really see it as just politics like it's just a video game. They see it as a life or death situation. Vote for X and we will suffer. This is more prone to violence. Fight for survival situation.

A lot of Bernie Supporters will rather vote Trump then Biden. With a few saying Bernie or else. The or else being violence. You can't convinced these people that you lost fair and square deal with it. All the arguments that happened these past couple of years about this topic proved that. They come up with a reason, either being rigged or whatever. And use that to justify their actions.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I sure hope you have evidence for those claims, otherwise you're slandering both.


I'm not sure how anybody could watch the on-camera behavior of either Biden or Trump and have any doubts left about their predatory tendencies.  If they're _that_ bold about it in public, I shudder to think about what happens behind closed doors.  IIRC Trump has more than 50 female accusers, while Biden is also close to breaking double digits.  Then there's the whole matter of Trump being BFFs with Epstein, who "mysteriously" committed suicide in a federal jail under the supervision of AG William Barr.  As far as I'm aware, Biden's name doesn't appear on flight logs for the "Lolita Express," but it wouldn't surprise me to later find out that it does.  I'd keep rattling off more evidence against the two of them, but frankly I don't have all week.



Foxi4 said:


> I understand that you were knee deep in the Bernie camp, but what's done is done - it's just politics, relax.


I'm sure you've lived a fairly privileged life, as have I, but that's no excuse for treating politics like a game without real-life consequences.  It permeates through nearly every facet of our every day routines.  Especially at a time when we're dealing with a pandemic killing people and destroying jobs.



zer01717 said:


> Maybe off topic, but seeing as he was a prime supporter of it can someone please explain why you guys do not want universal health care? I feel like you guys need it more then ever now...


A lot of Americans are just as bewildered about this as you are.  Every primary exit poll showed a large majority of Democrats support Medicare for all.  What it seems to come down to is that people didn't vote based on policy platforms.  They voted based on fear (of change) and name recognition, same as they did in 2016.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I'm not sure how anybody could watch the on-camera behavior of either Biden or Trump and have any doubts left about their predatory tendencies.  If they're _that_ bold about it in public, I shudder to think about what happens behind closed doors.  IIRC Trump has more than 50 female accusers, while Biden is also close to breaking double digits.  Then there's the whole matter of Trump being BFFs with Epstein, who "mysteriously" committed suicide in a federal jail under the supervision of AG William Barr.  As far as I'm aware, Biden's name doesn't appear on flight logs for the "Lolita Express," but it wouldn't surprise me to later find out that it does.  I'd keep rattling off more evidence against the two of them, but frankly I don't have all week.
> 
> I'm sure you've lived a fairly privileged life, as have I, but that's no excuse for treating politics like a game without real-life consequences.  It permeates through nearly every facet of our every day routines.  Especially at a time when we're dealing with a pandemic killing people and destroying jobs.
> 
> A lot of Americans are just as bewildered about this as you are.  Every primary exit poll showed a large majority of Democrats support Medicare for all.  What it seems to come down to is that people didn't vote based on policy platforms.  They voted based on fear (of change) and name recognition, same as they did in 2016.


I wouldn't call my upbringing privileged, but I also don't see how that would have any relevance here - observations are either accurate or they're not. With all due respect, America was doing just fine for the last four years and it's not going to implode after another four - the only reason the economy bombed this year is COVID-19, a rather sudden pandemic that KO'd the economies of most first-world countries, not just the United States. If you're looking for someone to blame for the current situation, I would direct your attention to China which diligently "handled" the coronavirus pandemic by silencing whistleblowers until it became impossible to conceal the spread anymore. You're right, politics do permeate our day to day lives, but at the end of the day a loss is still a loss - you can blame everybody but your candidate or you can take it gracefully and identify the flaws in his campaign, of which there were many. I will agree with you in regards to one crucial detail - the DNC set the primary up to ensure that Sanders fails. Everything, from last minute changes to the rules that allowed Bloomberg to run to a sudden shower of Biden endorsements indicates that the choice wasn't exactly "democratic", Biden was the chosen one from the start, like Clinton was before him.


----------



## Viri (Apr 9, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> the only reason the economy bombed this year is COVID-19, a rather sudden pandemic that KO'd the economies of most first-world countries, not just the United States. If you're looking for someone to blame for the current situation, I would direct your attention to China which diligently "handled" the coronavirus pandemic by silencing whistleblowers until it became impossible to conceal the spread anymore. .


Don't forget that the WHO refused to listen to Taiwan or even recognize them, and ignored them about their warnings about COVID-19. Taiwan took it very seriously, and got their shit together fast. If there is one country that doesn't trust China, that's Taiwan. Just go take a look at their numbers. Also, the WHO is bought out by China.



Spoiler: This sure aged well!



https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152


----------



## morvoran (Apr 9, 2020)

To any Bernie supporters who are still wishing to know what life would be like under a Bernie presidency, go ahead and send me half your paycheck and I'll give you nothing in return.
If you need to see a doctor for any reason, schedule your appointment 3 or more weeks from the day you would need to see them.  If you need any basic procedure done, ask your doctor to push it at least a year in the future.
If you ever need to protect yourself, just call the cops and wait while you are being assaulted or murdered.
If you own a home, start camping on your sidewalk and just poo anywhere you like.
There are so many wonderful ways to still live in a pretend Bernie world, but these should get you started.

On another note, just to show the type of folks who supported this socialist, take a look at this pic:


 

It looks like a lot of people desperate for "free stuff" really had their hopes on the US becoming a socialist nation. SMH!!!


----------



## Captain_N (Apr 9, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> And the DNC just handed 4 more years to Trump.



You really think bernie can beat trump? Just look how pissed bernie got when bloomberg called him a commie. Trump would have trolled Bernie so hard that bernie would run out of shades of red to turn. Bernie cant even tell you that your taxes will be over 60%. Hes so far left that the left dont even want him. Instead of trying to impeach trump on bullshit, they should have worked on a candidate that could beat him. Oh wait, they dont have one. They are still to salty that trump raped that in 2016. Trump is to much of a master troll for them to handle they still cant deal with him.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (Apr 9, 2020)

dont worry guys, we wont be around too much longer with the way things are going, which is why im not having children, im not reproducing if it means my children are gonna grow in a fucked world


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I wouldn't call my upbringing privileged, but I also don't see how that would have any relevance here - observations are either accurate or they're not.


How you make observations and the things you choose to make observations about is influenced almost exclusively by your upbringing and environment.  A person from North Korea is obviously going to have a very different process for thinking about things than a person from Africa, and that applies not only to geography, but also to differences across social status/class, among other factors.  Sure, facts are facts regardless, but so often they're ignored entirely in today's political discourse.  Case in point:



Foxi4 said:


> America was doing just fine for the last four years and it's not going to implode after another four


Citation needed.  Wages in America are about as low as they've ever been relative to inflation and cost of living.  The vast majority of Americans didn't even have an extra $600 bucks saved for an emergency, and that was before COVID-19 started spreading to the US.  Not to mention the deliberate and gradual dismantling of every federal institution which ensured America remained a democratic republic in more than title only.



Foxi4 said:


> the only reason the economy bombed this year is COVID-19


Along with a piss-poor and extremely late federal response to it, sure.  We'll also be waiting much longer for a recovery than other countries due to lack of funding, given that it's all been frittered away on corporate tax cuts and handouts.



Foxi4 said:


> China which diligently "handled" the coronavirus pandemic by silencing whistleblowers


Yes...that's something I'm sure the US government would never do.  



Foxi4 said:


> at the end of the day a loss is still a loss


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 9, 2020)

Assuming Biden doesn't die or isn't otherwise incapable of proceeding by the time the primaries are over, neither the democrats or republicans will have a candidate who supports the beliefs they're suppose to support. Biden is a conservative. Trump is an authoritarian. Neither have their full faculties and neither are going to support the things they're suppose to support. USA politics are so pants-on-head silly, you can't even rely on the party you're voting for to have people whose values align with the party's.

The USA is not only a disaster, it's getting worse. this is a pretty sad day.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> Assuming Biden doesn't die or isn't otherwise incapable of proceeding by the time the primaries are over, neither the democrats or republicans will have a candidate who supports the beliefs they're suppose to support. Biden is a conservative. Trump is an authoritarian. Neither have their full faculties and neither are going to support the things they're suppose to support. USA politics are so pants-on-head silly, you can't even rely on the party you're voting for to have people whose values align with the party's.
> 
> The USA is not only a disaster, it's getting worse. this is a pretty sad day.


Biden's mental decline is so obvious that a number of party insiders have been floating the idea that the DNC might hand all of Biden's delegates to somebody else at the convention, such as Andrew Cuomo.  Even as undemocratic as that might be, and even without knowing the first thing about the guy, I'd gladly take that shot in the dark over the guaranteed trainwreck that is Biden.  Hell, at this point I'd take Pete Buttigieg, and that's despite the fact that I think he's a two-faced neoliberal rat who tries too hard to sound like Obama.  At the very least the dude can string two coherent sentences together, which is more than I can say for Trump or Biden.


----------



## Viri (Apr 9, 2020)

Captain_N said:


> They are still to salty that trump raped that in 2016.


He grabbed the DNC by the pussy.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Apr 9, 2020)

vote for trump
save the movement
destroy the dnc



morvoran said:


> snip


you look fucking hilarious from the perspective of every other western nation
imagine how indoctrinated you have to be to believe this is how social democracy works


----------



## Cylent1 (Apr 9, 2020)

GOOD RIDDANCE!
We do not need no commy bastard running what is left of our constitutional republic anyways!


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2020)

Xzi said:


> How you make observations and the things you choose to make observations about is influenced almost exclusively by your upbringing and environment.  A person from North Korea is obviously going to have a very different process for thinking about things than a person from Africa, and that applies not only to geography, but also to differences across social status/class, among other factors.  Sure, facts are facts regardless, but so often they're ignored entirely in today's political discourse.  Case in point:
> 
> 
> Citation needed.  Wages in America are about as low as they've ever been relative to inflation and cost of living.  The vast majority of Americans didn't even have an extra $600 bucks saved for an emergency, and that was before COVID-19 started spreading to the US.  Not to mention the deliberate and gradual dismantling of every federal institution which ensured America remained a democratic republic in more than title only.
> ...


I would quote the DOW and SNP500 hitting record highs week after week, but the pandemic undid that in a hurry. On the bright side, I could bring up unemployment at a record low, particularly among ethnic minorities, to the point that job openings overtook the overall number of job seekers, or the noticeable wage growth, even when adjusted for inflation and a massive increase of the median household income as some of the improvements we've seen under Trump. I know that you don't like the guy, but give credit where credit is due. Back in 2016 I was told these policies would lead to another recession - that didn't happen. Sadly, I predict that the current lockdown will undo a lot of the good, leaving behind most of the bad. In any case, you can argue with his methods, you can dislike him as a person, but you can't argue with the results. Of course we can have a different opinion on what led to this well-performing economy - I'm sure you will tell me that the seedlings were planted via Obama's policies, and you would be partially correct, but not entirely. Material for another discussion, but I hope you found the "citations" satisfactory, even if you'll ultimately choose to interpret them differently.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2020)

Darth Meteos said:


> vote for trump
> save the movement
> destroy the dnc


The DNC and the RNC are essentially the same corporation.  Which is why a vote for either establishment puppet is a vote against every American's best interests.


----------



## Viri (Apr 9, 2020)

Black voters don't like Bernie Sanders.


----------



## morvoran (Apr 9, 2020)

Darth Meteos said:


> you look fucking hilarious from the perspective of every other western nation
> imagine how indoctrinated you have to be to believe this is how social democracy works


 First off, not sure what that has to do with what I posted.
Second, to what you said, only to the farthest leftists that believe all they read/hear from their own liberal media opinion sources.  To most of the world, the US is a power house of both military and economy, and Trump is both acknowledged and admired for how he Made America Great Again.  That is why we are being overrun by illegal aliens from a lot of different countries and our legal immigration system is backed up.  I'm not sure what Australia's liberal opinion station is, but if it's similar to the BBC, then I can see why you'd think the way you do.

If Bernie ever became president or had a chance, then I would believe you when you say that the US is pathetic.  One, our economy would go to shit. Two, he would be weak to our enemies/allies in other countries by bowing down to their every whim, and he'd destroy our military.

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



Viri said:


> He grabbed the DNC by the pussy.


I'd just like to clarify that they *LET* Trump grab them by the pussy.  Completely consensual grabbing there.  Only Biden goes in fingers first without permission (ask Tara Reade about that if you believe all women #metoo).


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I would quote the DOW and SNP500 hitting record highs week after week, unemployment at a record low, particularly among ethnic minorities, to the point that job openings overtaking the overall number of job seekers, the noticeable wage growth even when adjusted for inflation and a massive increase of the median household income to be just some of the improvements we've seen under Trump. During his presidency over 4.6 million people were lifted out of food stamps and into sustainable life. I know that you don't like the guy, but give credit where credit is due. Back in 2016 I was told these policies would lead to another recession - that didn't happen.


The stock market is a measure of how well corporations and the 1% are doing, not the overall economy, and it's in free fall now regardless.  Biggest drop since the great depression.  Unemployment being low and high job availability is great, until you look a little closer at what exactly that entails: people working multiple jobs and still unable to make end's meet, particularly if they have to care for a family.  The data for average and median incomes is always going to be skewed based on the richest among us, so I don't feel like it's a good indicator of how the middle or lower classes are doing.  The middle class was continuing to shrink through 2019.  As far as food stamps go, I have to question whether people were "lifted" off of them or simply kicked off of them to make the statistics look better.  Even now, during a pandemic, those who rely on food stamps can't be sure they'll be spared from the maliciousness of the Trump administration.



Foxi4 said:


> Sadly, I predict that the current lockdown will quickly undo a lot of the good, leaving behind most of the bad.


Uhhh...yeah.  Two Republican presidents now in the last two decades, both of whom will have left the country flat broke and in a recession/depression.  Of course that's going to leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths.  Right or wrong, the results they deliver are 99% of what people remember about any given president, not the steps they took to get to that point.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Apr 9, 2020)

morvoran said:


> To most of the world, the US is a power house of both military and economy, and Trump is both acknowledged and admired for how he Made America Great Again.


that you think that is even more hilarious
you elected the guy from that shitty reality show
he's a fatass orange guy who talks shit and gets little done
you're a running joke in most of the world, aside from the myriad nations that are being actively attacked by you guys

trump is obama+
more corporate, more war, but now with good twitter game
you're a laughingstock, and the legend grows with every moronic statement

from the perspective of a nation like mine, where i get healthcare that's free at the point of service, massive subsidies for tertiary education, and a good minimum wage, you look... underdeveloped. you look like monsters, your politicians go out and say things like "OH, under my term as Governor, 90% of people were insured!"
the richest nation in the world has over 18 thousand people die every year due to lack of healthcare
and still you roll around waving the flag of a country whose leaders would be hanged if the Nuremberg laws were actually upheld and say "US is a power house..."
you are diseased

here are the nations who think you're a powerhouse
look at how they love you





_nations were asked which country is the greatest threat to world peace- this graphic is the results_


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2020)

Xzi said:


> The stock market is a measure of how well corporations and the 1% are doing, not the overall economy, and it's in free fall now regardless.  Biggest drop since the great depression.  Unemployment being low and high job availability is great, until you look a little closer at what exactly that entails: people working multiple jobs and still unable to make end's meet, particularly if they have to care for a family.  The data for average and median incomes is always going to be skewed based on the richest among us, so I don't feel like it's a good indicator of how the middle or lower classes are doing.  The middle class was continuing to shrink through 2019.  As far as food stamps go, I have to question whether people were "lifted" off of them or simply kicked off of them to make the statistics look better.  Even now, during a pandemic, those who rely on food stamps can't be sure they'll be spared from the maliciousness of the Trump administration.
> 
> 
> Uhhh...yeah.  Two Republican presidents now in the last two decades, both of whom will have left the country flat broke and in a recession/depression.  Of course that's going to leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths.  Right or wrong, the results they deliver are 99% of what people remember about any given president, not the steps they took to get to that point.


You know what? That's fair - Trump's SNAP reform does decrease entitlements and some people may get kicked off going forward, that much is true, so I'll remove that "accomplishment" from the list, even though I maintain that food stamps shouldn't even be a thing in a well-oiled economy. A decrease in recipients is a win to me, but I see how you might disagree. I'm aware of the fact that not all of the decrease is organic - some of it is legislative due to changing requirements, the linked fact check says as much _(and isn't all that favourable, since people generally don't appreciate entitlement reform unless entitlements are going up)_. As far as income is concerned, the graph I linked is from the Bureau of Labour and Statistics and it pertains to average weekly income of production and nonsupervisory workers. While the median might be skewed, their average is not. As for the stock market, it does not only pertain to the 1% - it's a general indicator of economic health. Your 401k isn't up in the sky, it's intrinsically connected to stock market investments. The indexes aren't just fancy names - they're collections of company stock and indicate how well those entities are doing, which has a direct effect on how well the employees are doing also. The stock market isn't relegated to the elites - it impacts you and me directly, as much if not more so than politics. In any case, we're straying quite a bit off topic here, so I'll let the thread return to Bernie.


----------



## notimp (Apr 9, 2020)

morvoran said:


> On another note, just to show the type of folks who supported this socialist, take a look at this pic:View attachment 203304
> 
> It looks like a lot of people desperate for "free stuff" really had their hopes on the US becoming a socialist nation. SMH!!!


Can someone tell that moron, that he is and always will be a moron, and that he cant read statistics?

And that he constantly falls for EVERY creative reinterpretation of statistical results based on presentation?

If I take supporters and throw them into one category for 'not working' and into more categories than listed on this graph for working (1% of dentists who like to wear blue coats), then guess what happens?

Your interpretation that 'unemplyed people gave most' is still wrong - employed people did.

But according to that graph unemployed people represented his donor base 7x more than you'd think based on a 3.6% official unemployment rate in the us. At which point I call BS and want to see the sources of that statistic.

Because I cant for the life of me understand, how you'd get to job attribution from anonymous online donations (edit: cant be anonymous - my mistake), which is what the majority of his donationbase was.

So let me look into this for a while.


----------



## Jayro (Apr 9, 2020)

So now we get to choose between a rapist, and a racist rapist. Fun times... I'm still voting for Bernie, IDGAF.


----------



## notimp (Apr 9, 2020)

The source for morvorvans graph is this article:
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-sanders-donors/

COULD I ENTICE YOU TO FINALLY POST SOURCES (that doesnt just go for morvovan - but for everyone of you)? Because otherwise its hard to find out who made your shit up, and what their sources were.

The article is from 2016.

The graph in total shows 58% of the donors listed by occupation, so it is incomplete.

THIS IS WHY YOU USUALLY PRESENT THAT SORT OF INFORMATION IN PIE CHARTS AND NOT IN BAR GRAPHS. SO PEOPLE LIKE morvovan DONT GET CONFUSED.

The graph was made up by a LA Times journalist - wo neither listed their data, nor their methods (= thats not scientific, thats A GUY (edit: gal) doing something), nor how the HECK they were able to deanonymize 'repeat donors' merging datasets of Act Blue.
(Did they count all John Smiths as one person, and then made them unemployed because one of them was? I need at least some of their methodology - and they provide nothing.)


> The Times combined federal reports from ActBlue and Sanders’ campaign to conduct an unprecedented analysis of Sanders’ contributors, including identifying people who had given multiple times.


The donations that go through Act Blue according to them account for 90% of his total funds.
-

More importantly though - we are talking about a little over 1 million contributers, according to them.

Which means

286.000 unemployed people in the US (which is 2.4% of all unemployed people, calculation: (100/11779200)*286000=2.4) gave 7 times more to his campaign than would be expected if every american gave to his campaign equally.

What was your interpretation of this graph again?

The unemployed gave most. WRONG. (Employed people did.) And they want to take my country over by making it socialist! WELL 2.4% OF THEM. Maybe.

But you discriminated against unemployed people like a BIG BOY - because some journalist didnt give a fuck and started to deanonymize individual donations of 29-96USD on average - because they were bored and had no ethics, no methodical transparancy, didnt provide any inkling of what they were actually doing, and didnt provide any of their data. And then posted graphs with half of the people donating missing.

Fun with statistics.
----

edit: Also, according to this article - students, who are the most vocal supporter group of Sanders, gave almost nothing to Sanders. Which means, that they are conveniently missing from morvorvans argument entirely - because he viewed Bernie supporters through the lens of 'who donates to him', which comes with its own biases. Also maybe they are counted as unemployed?

edit2: Also NOTHING adds up here.
LA Times in 2016 listed their data base as 1 mio donors donating 96USD on average (because of repeat donors), then they say - thats 90% of his funding base.

Except, that it isnt.

Total funds raised by his campaign in 2016 were 228mio USD:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000528

So I dont know what that journalist was smoking, when he missed half of the donors (presumably the lage ones who didnt donate through Act Blue), but I want some of it.

edit3: Sanders in 2016 dropped out on July 26, 2016 and the article was published on June 3rd, 2016 - so missing more than half of the donorbase cant be explained away by the article simply having been released earlier.

edit4: The 1 million donors figure according to the LA Times accounted for 2/3s of his donations. Since they dont list the amount of people they could get the occupational data from - I have to guess, that it is about that same 1 mio. In the worst case - I'm a third off. So you could add a third to the 2,4% figure.

So three percent of all unemployed people donated to Sanders. Scary. Not.

Especially if you think about that the US presidential system basically is 'choosing' between "four more years", or "change". And then on the change front get to decide between two flavors of change within a party. (Trump wasnt one of them.)


----------



## SG854 (Apr 9, 2020)

SexiestManAlive said:


> dont worry guys, we wont be around too much longer with the way things are going, which is why im not having children, im not reproducing if it means my children are gonna grow in a fucked world


You being the Sexiest Man Alive it'll be hard for you not to reproduce. Girls will be all over you.


----------



## notimp (Apr 9, 2020)

I want to dedicate an entire posting on what morvovan just did in here.

He tried to make the argument, that he and or other people shouldnt vote for Sanders, because 'mostly' people out of a job would vote for him, to have an easier life.

Because that wasnt substantiable - he resorted to the next best thing, which was that he  found a statistic on the Sanders donors, saw that people out of work were listed as the top category, didnt realize that there were many, many others - all of which summed up to 'working people' , and that they made up 3/4 of Sanders donation base. Then claimed, mostly people out of work would vote for Sanders.

That said, people out of a job being seven times more likely to donate to Sanders than demographics would indicate (if everyone donates statistically equally (which of course isnt the case)) struck me as intuitively odd. That factor seemed way to high.

And then I though about it for two minutes.

Most americans dont donate for a political candidates. Because they are under the correct impression, that their companies, or their bosses will do that for them. So whenever they think about 'should I give money to a candidate' they have this easy logical out of - eh, my industry is sponsoring him/her anyhow - I dont have to. Which explains why so few people directly donate to political candidates anyhow (- since in the american system there are no publically available funds and all of that money comes from sponsors).

Jobless people dont have that. If they want to have their voice heard politically - they have to spend their own money. So whichever promising candidate is left of center (edit: or right from center, shouldnt matter) gets a disproportionate amount of their donations, statistically - always.

So what morvovan essentially was saying was - a candidate that I would vote for - has to be mostly financed by corporations, or my bosses taking political donations out of my paycheck, or I would not vote for him - because he gets disproportionally more money from out of work people, simply as a statistical result. And that feels icky.

Or the other way around - "I never thought about giving money to a political candidate, because I dont have to - but all those poor out of work people, without political representation, should not participate politically through donations at all - and therefore not count politically at all".

Simply because when they do participate, and group around a candidate (maybe 3x more likely around Sanders the average candidate), then the amount of donations they give compared to the average citizen, that thinks of the being coverd by the company he works for, always tends to 'bunch up' (because the average citizen is less likely to donate to get his voice heard).

So morvovan, I think you hit a new low, even for you on that one.

(Other factors:

As written in the article - students didnt show up in Sanders donation statistics hardly at all - which could mean they didnt donate - or that many of them where filed under jobless.

7x more likely than statistically likely for Sanders also could result from different measures for joblessness used in general unemployment statistics and 'self assigned job description' when donating for a political candidate. Meaning, US unemployment rate of 3.6% seems unbelievably low. The higher the real unemployment number is, the more that 7x factor comes down.)


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2020)

notimp said:


> So what morvovan essentially was saying was - a candidate that I would vote for - has to be mostly financed by corporations, or my bosses taking political donations out of my paycheck, or I would not vote for him - because he gets disproportionally more money from out of work people, simply as a statistical result. And that feels icky.


This should come as no surprise to anybody who's read just a few of morvoran's posts, he's a neoconservative with some fascist leanings.  He's 100% on board with socialism, as long as it's the kind of socialism that exclusively benefits those who are already rich and/or powerful.  Supposedly he was homeless at one point, so you'd think that experience would've given him some shred of empathy toward the poor and working class, but instead he shows nothing but contempt and disdain for anyone he considers "beneath" him.  A trait he no doubt picked up from the leader of cult 45.

Of course, the homeless story could have been pulled straight from his ass like so many other comments he makes here, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out he was actually born into immense wealth and privilege.  Regardless, his political views are myopic at best, unhinged and utterly psychotic at their worst.  The type of drivel that shouldn't be allowed anywhere on the internet save perhaps the angst-filled middle school playground that is 4chan.

I enjoyed reading your thorough and concise take-down nonetheless.


----------



## notimp (Apr 9, 2020)

Easiest way to sum it up is something like this:

So Michael Moore was wrong and out of work people didn't buy 'merica first hats for Trump? (Trumps way of 'helping his campaign financing a little'.)

But morvovan only votes for canidates that dont have disproportionate donation support by people that are out of their jobs. So he wouldnt have been allowed to vote for Trump in 2016. 

(Because that 'bunching up' effect should show on left of center as well as right of center candidates (donation for 'change'). Of course then all Trump did was give taxcuts to his friends, but that doesnt mean that jobless people didnt support him in high numbers as well..  )


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2020)

notimp said:


> Easiest way to sum it up is something like this:
> 
> So Michael Moore was wrong and out of work people didn't buy 'merica first hats for Trump? (Trumps way of 'helping his campaign financing a little'.)
> 
> ...


Indeed that's the irony of it, quite a bit of Sanders' support comes from unemployed/underemployed independents and even moderate conservatives who understand that the US is the richest nation on Earth, our government spends insane amounts of money regardless of who's president, and the working class sees zero benefit from it.  Not to mention that Trump started running on many of Bernie's policy platforms in 2016 after Clinton had secured the nomination.  He never delivered on any of it or even intended to of course, but the fact that people were willing to ignore their bullshit detectors and vote him in anyway speaks to just how powerful that type of populist messaging has become in recent years.  

Bernie was the logical next step after the progressive "hope and change" that Obama promised fell through the cracks to some degree, and the Democratic party has failed to recognize that twice now to their own detriment.


----------



## 30yoDoomer (Apr 9, 2020)

zer01717 said:


> Maybe off topic, but seeing as he was a prime supporter of it can someone please explain why you guys do not want universal health care? I feel like you guys need it more then ever now...


We pretty much have it already. You can be the IRL version of Oscar the grouch (but with more crack) and shortly after they wheel your indigent ass into the hospital for a cardiac event you'll be signed up for medicaid. 
I think the only ones who get screwed are the solidly middle class people who lack a group plan through their employer, and some elderly who didn't off load their property to their kids early enough (assisted living burns through it quick).


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 9, 2020)

lol at the bernie extremists calling 4 more years for trump because useless bernie bowed out like the useless pillock he is.
4 more years for trump was a lock years ago. trump is not a disease. He is a symptom of a disease. A disease called america. He was inevitable.

Should have been Warren. She is awesome.


----------



## 30yoDoomer (Apr 9, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Should have been Warren. She is awesome.


Watching her eviscerate Bloomberg on stage was magical. She probably could have done the same to Trump during the debate, but I'm not sure if it would resonate with the mushy middle - additionally I think her likeability is that of a Hillary 2.0 (meaning low)


----------



## morvoran (Apr 9, 2020)

@Darth Meteos Since this site doesn't have any moderators anymore, I guess I'll reply to your offtopic post......



Darth Meteos said:


> that you think that is even more hilarious
> you elected the guy from that shitty reality show
> he's a fatass orange guy who talks shit and gets little done
> you're a running joke in most of the world, aside from the myriad nations that are being actively attacked by you guys


  It's so funny how you think because a person had his own show, that disqualifies him from office.  What jobs are allowed to make someone a good president in your mind?  SMH
Why do you have to fatshame anybody and make fun of his skin color?  That's not very tolerant of a very obvious liberal.  Shame on you and your hatred.
He may talk shit, but I'd rather have a crass president that makes my country better than a lying piece of shit that stabs their citizens in the back like the democrats that keep promising "free stuff" like Bernie but never come through.  
As for him getting little done, what have you, your family, or your PM done?  That is an opinion that is way off from the truth.
Check this out - https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/ 
You can take that "gets little done" opinion of yours and shove it up your "do nothing" behind.  Maybe, you should stop listening to your liberal leaders and opinion tv people.




Darth Meteos said:


> trump is obama+
> more corporate, more war, but now with good twitter game
> you're a laughingstock, and the legend grows with every moronic statement


 Obama doesn't compare to Trump in anyway.  Obama made promises to end wars but started more.  Trump has ended wars.  He has helped the US citizens way more than the corporations have benefited.   Not sure where you get this "laughingstock"?  If you're anti-america, anti-freedom, etc, then that's on you.  Just don't spread lies and keep your liberal lies to yourself, please.



Darth Meteos said:


> from the perspective of a nation like mine, where i get healthcare that's free at the point of service, massive subsidies for tertiary education, and a good minimum wage, you look... underdeveloped. you look like monsters, your politicians go out and say things


  Your countries healthcare is better than most socialist healthcare according to some sources, but don't go acting like it's better.  The only reason it could be said to be better than the US' is due to the fact that you can also get good private healthcare when the public healthcare fails you.  Who would want to wait up to 3 months to see a doctor of the government's choosing to get a procedure for a "non-life threatening" condition when it could become fatal by the time you see them.  I'd prefer the private option that I pay for where I see a doctor quicker.
I can even go further to say that our healthcare system provides most of the innovation and advances in the healthcare industry.  This can only be accomplished in a capitalist system such as ours.  It must be nice to live in a country that sucks off the teets of our advancements and gives them away for "free" that you laugh at.  It's also not free at the point of service if you pay higher taxes for it unless you are unemployed.




Darth Meteos said:


> the richest nation in the world has over 18 thousand people die every year due to lack of healthcare
> and still you roll around waving the flag of a country whose leaders would be hanged if the Nuremberg laws were actually upheld and say "US is a power house..."
> you are diseased


  We are rich because our citizens are rich.  People have options to get healthcare, either through government assistance or from an employer.  If you are in your 50's and work at McDonald's, don't go crying to me because your job doesn't provide you healthcare.  Just because your puny country/continent has so few people, you can't compare the numbers of deaths each year.  Eighteen thousand people is barely 0.05% of our population.
I have no idea about that Nuremberg nonsense.  I guess that would make more sense if I lived in a British prison colony.

As I said before, your opinion are obviously not your own as it is full of liberal bias that you must have read/heard on Tv or on leftist websites.  Please go and learn something for yourself instead of being a sheep for the left.


----------



## notimp (Apr 9, 2020)

Darth Meteos said:


> and still you roll around waving the flag of a country whose leaders would be hanged if the Nuremberg laws were actually upheld and say "US is a power house..."
> you are diseased


Just for giggles:


(The thing is, there is no other enforcing power than the hegemon (see: hegemony).)


----------



## City (Apr 9, 2020)

Darth Meteos said:


> that you think that is even more hilarious
> you elected the guy from that shitty reality show
> he's a fatass orange guy who talks shit and gets little done
> you're a running joke in most of the world, aside from the myriad nations that are being actively attacked by you guys
> ...


Source on that map?


----------



## Pacheko17 (Apr 9, 2020)

Why do 99% of US politicians suck? 
Bernie, Trump, Biden, they're all shit.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Should have been Warren. She is awesome.


Warren hired a bunch of ex-Hillary staffers and then failed to win her own home state.  She's done some positive things in the Senate, but her political instincts are garbage when it comes to running a larger campaign.  Along with her ridiculous attempt to smear Bernie and endear herself to the establishment, trying to be the "compromise" candidate between progressivism and neoliberalism instead just made everybody in both camps dislike her.


----------



## seany1990 (Apr 10, 2020)

Shame about Bernie. When every media source is against you then you really have no chance. Obviously the DNC has learned no lessons at all from 2016 and history will repeat itself, oh but maybe that isn't so bad as their precious donors can still keep their sweet sweet tax breaks with a Trump presidency so everybody wins... Well everybody within the top 10% tax bracket... The only people who matter obviously


----------



## Seliph (Apr 10, 2020)

Good job DNC, looks like we've got 4 more years. At least Bernie's still on the ballots even if he's not campaigning anymore.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Good job DNC, looks like we've got 4 more years. At least Bernie's still on the ballots even if he's not campaigning anymore.


Yeah I have a feeling that dropping out now was mostly influenced by the shitshow in Wisconsin and his desire to make sure people stay safe.  Meanwhile, both Biden and Trump have no problem telling people to go wait in line for hours to vote in person.  They're the human equivalents of Gamestop.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Warren hired a bunch of ex-Hillary staffers and then failed to win her own home state.  She's done some positive things in the Senate, but her political instincts are garbage when it comes to running a larger campaign.  Along with her ridiculous attempt to smear Bernie and endear herself to the establishment, trying to be the "compromise" candidate between progressivism and neoliberalism instead just made everybody in both camps dislike her.



Nah. 

Man, bernie extremists are almost as bad as maga bois.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Nah.


Well I'm convinced, this is such a compelling counterpoint.  



Waygeek said:


> Man, bernie extremists are almost as bad as maga bois.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Well I'm convinced, this is such a compelling counterpoint.
> 
> 
> View attachment 203701



I wouldn't try and convince any kind of extremist, maga or bernie. They can't be convinced, that's one of the things that makes them extremists.

Love the lack of self awareness too. Bernie extremists are actually known for being abrasive and unlikeable. Much like their candidate!

He had no place continuing to run after the heart attack too.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> I wouldn't try and convince any kind of extremist, maga or bernie. They can't be convinced, that's one of the things that makes them extremists.


It's a moronic and inaccurate comparison to make, sorry.  Socialists are not a cult of personality, and when Bernie tells them to vote for Biden they'll all flip him the bird in unison.



Waygeek said:


> Love the lack of self awareness too. Bernie extremists are actually known for being abrasive and unlikeable. Much like their candidate!


Oh yeah, and people are really loving the shrill and incoherent third wave feminist neoliberals who made up the bulk of Warren's support, right?  You can't win an election when your morals and values are entirely malleable and based on political expediency.  Bernie has been fighting for the same things his entire life, Warren was a Republican until the mid-90s.



Waygeek said:


> He had no place continuing to run after the heart attack too.


The voters clearly disagreed with that sentiment.  Warren should've dropped before Super Tuesday, the results were a complete and utter embarrassment for her entire campaign staff.


----------



## morvoran (Apr 10, 2020)

To everybody who donated to this socialist, just remember:





To anybody who thinks that "Democratic socialist" is really a thing or that Bernie was anything but a true socialist, look at this: 

*Bernie’s Press Secretary: ‘Now I Can Drop ‘Democratic’ From ‘Democratic Socialism’*


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

morvoran said:


> To everybody who donated to this socialist, just remember:
> 
> View attachment 203709


His campaign raised millions of dollars for charities and medical supplies in the fight against COVID-19.  For my part I say it was money well spent.  Meanwhile you're stupid enough to give away money to a billionaire who is already siphoning your tax dollars into his pockets, rofl.



morvoran said:


> To anybody who thinks that "Democratic socialist" is really a thing or that Bernie was anything but a true socialist, look at this:
> 
> *Bernie’s Press Secretary: ‘Now I Can Drop ‘Democratic’ From ‘Democratic Socialism’*


And?  Stephen Miller is an unapologetic Nazi fuck, and he's a high-ranking part of the Trump administration.  People are free to have their own individual viewpoints separate from their bosses, not that I'm convinced Trump is all that different to Miller in practice.


----------



## morvoran (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> His campaign raised millions of dollars for charities and medical supplies in the fight against COVID-19. For my part I say it was money well spent. Meanwhile you're stupid enough to give away money to a billionaire who is already siphoning your tax dollars into his pockets, rofl.


 No, I'm sure all that money is going towards his forth home just as the donations from the last time helped him buy his third one.



Xzi said:


> And? Stephen Miller is an unapologetic Nazi fuck, and he's a high-ranking part of the Trump administration. People are free to have their own individual viewpoints separate from their bosses, not that I'm convinced Trump is all that different to Miller in practice.


 You're projecting here to distract yourself from the real issue.  Your boy was on top of the socialist ladder (not some lackey like Miller) and wanted to be a socialist dictator, and the Bernie Bro's were going to be his enforcers.  Plus when has Miller ever come out and promoted Nazism like Ol 'Bernie promoted Cuba/China/Russia?


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> It's a moronic and inaccurate comparison to make, sorry.



It's not, of course, you just don't like what you're hearing.



Xzi said:


> Socialists are not a cult of personality



LAUGH. MY. FUCKING. ARSE. OFF.

And at least Warren didn't blow a god damn heart valve.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Plus when has Miller ever come out and promoted Nazism?


Every single time he opens his mouth and/or throws a bunch of dogwhistles into the speeches he writes for Trump.



Waygeek said:


> It's not, of course, you just don't like what you're hearing


This type of "enlightened centrism" is exactly why your candidate failed to win a single state in the primary.  Just keep on thinking the people who want a second bill of rights enacted for the benefit of the working class are exactly the same as white nationalists and neo-nazis.  That's a good way to quickly find yourself with zero allies in any given political struggle.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (Apr 10, 2020)

morvoran said:


> @Darth Meteos Since this site doesn't have any moderators anymore, I guess I'll reply to your offtopic post......
> 
> It's so funny how you think because a person had his own show, that disqualifies him from office.  What jobs are allowed to make someone a good president in your mind?  SMH
> Why do you have to fatshame anybody and make fun of his skin color?  That's not very tolerant of a very obvious liberal.  Shame on you and your hatred.
> ...


tldr


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Every single time he opens his mouth and/or throws a bunch of dogwhistles into the speeches he writes for Trump.
> 
> This type of "enlightened centrism" is exactly why your candidate failed to win a single state in the primary.  Just keep on thinking the people who want a second bill of rights enacted for the benefit of the working class are exactly the same as white nationalists and neo-nazis.  That's a good way to quickly find yourself with zero allies in any given political struggle.


To be fair, your kind of abrasive attitude is precisely why your movement has been failing to gain any traction in the United States. Since its inception in the early 20th century up until now the only method of implementing any socialist policy has been through the back door, by marketing it as not socialist or by bundling it with something actually palatable. The "Democratic Socialism" movement, which you must admit has less to do with democracy and more to do with just plain old socialism, has a tendency to overplay their hand. Now that effectively everyone you don't like is a neo-nazi, the word is devalued and doesn't mean anything anymore, you took the bite out of it. It's even funnier when your crowd calls the opposition "authoritarian" considering the fact that you're the people suggesting massive government overreach. You *say* that you're Liberal, but when it's all said and done you're big fans of the police state, in so far as collecting taxes and bringing them back to whoever's the Robin Hood of the day is concerned. As for who the voters agreed with, they clearly picked Biden - Sanders just wasn't electable enough and continuing the farce would've been both a waste of everyone's time and an unnecessary risk, especially during a pandemic.


----------



## BORTZ (Apr 10, 2020)

morvoran said:


> @Darth Meteos Since this site doesn't have any moderators anymore, I guess I'll reply to your offtopic post......


You don't send volunteer workers into a garbage dump to "clean up". That would be a waste of resources and frankly, irresponsible.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> To be fair, your kind of abrasive attitude is precisely why your movement has been failing to gain any traction in the United States. Since its inception in the early 20th century up until now the only method of implementing any socialist policy has been through the back door, by marketing it as not socialist or by bundling it with something actually palatable.


Ever heard of the overton window?  How about manufactured consent?  This has nothing to do with abrasiveness, otherwise the Republican party never would have found success using the Southern Strategy to win elections.  Curious how, dating all the way back to the 40s and 50s, everything the left wing fought for had to be made palatable to the right wing, but the opposite wasn't true.  Every Republican administration has been dragging the country rightward, while entirely too many spineless Democratic administrations have caved to centrism and thus been complicit in that rightward drift.



Foxi4 said:


> Now that effectively everyone you don't like is a neo-nazi, the word is devalued and doesn't mean anything anymore, you took the bite out of it. It's even funnier when your crowd calls the opposition "authoritarian" considering the fact that you're the people suggesting massive government overreach.


Like I said, ask Miller himself and he won't even deny the label.  He's much more likely to embrace it as a badge of honor.  And since when is Medicare or basic taxation equivalent to "overreach?"  Sounds like you're really reaching yourself with that one.



Foxi4 said:


> You *say* that you're Liberal, but when it all is said and done you're big fans of the police state, in so far as collecting taxes and bringing them back to whoever's the Robin Hood of the day.


No, I don't claim to be a liberal, because liberals are indeed big fans of the police state just as conservatives are.  The only contrast is that they bow to two different sets of corporations, but obviously all corporations have a number of common interests.



Foxi4 said:


> As for who the voters agreed with, they clearly picked Biden - Sanders just wasn't electable enough and continuing the farce would've been a waste of everyone's time and an unnecessary risk, especially during a pandemic.


C'mon now, I'm sure you know as well as I do that the "electability" line pushed by MSNBC and CNN was itself a farce.  Biden was soundly defeated in three previous primary runs due to excessive gaffes, and that was back when his mind was still sharp, or at least far sharper than it is now.  He didn't suddenly become more electable one day, the Democratic party's standards have simply been lowered in response to Trump's presidency, just as the Republican party's standards have been.

Like I already stated, Bernie's decision to drop out was likely influenced by his desire to see average Americans stay safe.  Biden, Trump, and the Supreme Court are all perfectly fine with endangering lives by encouraging people to vote in person, especially if that means helping to suppress some of the opposition's turnout.  The pandemic has exposed many of this nation's flaws where capitalism and healthcare are concerned, all the more reason this was another huge missed opportunity.  But I suppose at the end of the day, Bernie simply didn't have enough sexual assault allegations levied against him to be considered a real contender for the presidency.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Ever heard of the overton window?  How about manufactured consent?  This has nothing to do with abrasiveness, otherwise the Republican party never would have found success using the Southern Strategy to win elections.  Curious how, dating all the way back to the 40s and 50s, everything the left wing fought for had to be made palatable to the right wing, but the opposite wasn't true.  Every Republican administration has been dragging the country rightward, while entirely too many spineless Democratic administrations have caved to centrism and thus been complicit in that rightward drift.
> 
> Like I said, ask Miller himself and he won't even deny the label.  He's much more likely to embrace it as a badge of honor.  And since when is Medicare or basic taxation equivalent to "overreach?"  Sounds like you're really reaching yourself with that one.
> 
> ...


I wasn't talking specifically about Miller, I was talking about your movement's tendency to call any form of opposition an expression of Nazi sentiment, which makes the word overplayed and meaningless. As far as Miller is concerned, he has some bizarre reading habits which include American Renaissance, but he also reads Shapiro, so you could just say that he's "aligned with the far right" and your comment wouldn't be so giggle worthy. Now, the reason why he can't be a Nazi is rather simple - that particular team wouldn't accept him on the roster, Miller is Jewish. Nazis and the Jews, they don't play along, see. He *might* be a white supremacist, or he might have some racist prejudices, but I don't think he advocates for a National Socialist ethnostate considering the fact that he'd be first in line to be ejected from it. You're confusing Miller with Spencer - get your xenophobia right, @Xzi.


BORTZ said:


> You don't send volunteer workers into a garbage dump to "clean up". That would be a waste of resources and frankly, irresponsible.


That's hilarious, and true.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Ever heard of the overton window?  How about manufactured consent?  This has nothing to do with abrasiveness, otherwise the Republican party never would have found success using the Southern Strategy to win elections.  Curious how, dating all the way back to the 40s and 50s, everything the left wing fought for had to be made palatable to the right wing, but the opposite wasn't true.  Every Republican administration has been dragging the country rightward, while entirely too many spineless Democratic administrations have caved to centrism and thus been complicit in that rightward drift.
> 
> 
> Like I said, ask Miller himself and he won't even deny the label.  He's much more likely to embrace it as a badge of honor.  And since when is Medicare or basic taxation equivalent to "overreach?"  Sounds like you're really reaching yourself with that one.
> ...


If they don't go out to vote for Bernie wouldn't they still put their lives in danger voting for someone else? 

And people can come up with ways to vote online now, so that no one has to go out. Online may be subject to manipulation but considering the fact that were are in a pandemic I'm sure people can make an exception for this election.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2020)

SG854 said:


> If they don't go out to vote for Bernie wouldn't they still put their lives in danger voting for someone else?
> 
> And people can come up with ways to vote online now, so that no one has to go out. Online may be subject to manipulation but considering the fact that were are in a pandemic I'm sure people can make an exception for this election.


In the world of making excuses voting by mail or online is not a viable option, stop making sense immediately. It was care that made him drop out, not the fact that he objectively had no chance to win.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 10, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> In the world of making excuses voting by mail or online is not a viable option, stop making sense immediately. It was care that made him drop out, not the fact that he objectively had no chance to win.


R U Crazy delivering mail to a mail place, going out to the corona virus filled world. Corona  virus will eat them alive


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I wasn't talking specifically about Miller, I was talking about your movement's tendency to call any form of opposition an expression of Nazi sentiment, which makes the word overplayed and meaningless.


The exact same could be said of the right wing and their tendency to call anything and everything left of center "communism."  There are still plenty of people out there who do self-identify as fascists or communists though, and those words still have meaning even despite being misused often.



Foxi4 said:


> As far as Miller is concerned, he has some bizarre reading habits which include American Renaissance, but he also reads Shapiro, so you could just say that he's "aligned with the far right" and your comment wouldn't be so giggle worthy. Now, the reason why he can't be a Nazi is rather simple - that particular team wouldn't accept him on the roster, Miller is Jewish. Nazis and the Jews, they don't play along, see. He *might* be a white supremacist, or he might have some racist prejudices, but I don't think he advocates for a National Socialist ethnostate considering the fact that he'd be first in line to be ejected from it.


I'm fully aware that he's Jewish.  Much in the same way the protagonist in The Believer is Jewish (and self-hating).



SG854 said:


> And people can come up with ways to vote online now, so that no one has to go out. Online may be subject to manipulation but considering the fact that were are in a pandemic I'm sure people can make an exception for this election.


The subject of national mail-in ballots has been broached several times in the last few days, but Trump has shut it down immediately every time.  He's repeatedly said the quiet part out loud too, that "there would never be another Republican president" if voting were made more accessible.  Very few states have that kind of easy access right now, and we have decades of voter suppression tactics to thank for that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> The exact same could be said of the right wing and their tendency to call anything and everything left of center "communism."  There are still plenty of people out there who do self-identify as fascists or communists though, and those words still have meaning even despite being misused often.
> 
> I'm fully aware that he's Jewish.  Much in the same way the protagonist in The Believer is Jewish.


First point is fair. Second point, perhaps not the best one to make when you've just been told that you overuse the term to the point of making many of the accusations seem fictional. Fair enough though.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> This type of "enlightened centrism" is exactly why your candidate failed to win a single state in the primary.  Just keep on thinking the people who want a second bill of rights enacted for the benefit of the working class are exactly the same as white nationalists and neo-nazis.  That's a good way to quickly find yourself with zero allies in any given political struggle.



America is not the world, though you yanks certaintly think so. I, thankfully, am not american, therefore I am statistically less likely to be an extremist. 

I would also be a progressive, if a label needed to be attached to it. I know how you yanks love your labels. 

You are the only extremist in this thread that I can see, unless there's some maga pepes I'm not seeing.

Maybe don't be an extremist.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> America is not the world, though you yanks certaintly think so. I, thankfully, am not american, therefore I am statistically less likely to be an extremist.
> 
> Maybe don't be an extremist.


Now you're just being completely nonsensical.  Bernie's policies are center-left at best by European and world standards.  Warren would be center-right by those same standards.  Neither is in any way "extreme."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Now you're just being completely nonsensical.  Bernie's policies are center-left at best by European and world standards.  Warren would be center-right by those same standards.  Neither is in any way "extreme."


A +90% tax rate for "the 1%" is not "center-left" by any European standard. Venezuelan standard, maybe, but not European. If Sanders' plan was enacted, the absolute peak of the income scale would face an effective tax rate of 97.5%. They'd immediately move all of their assets abroad, as you and I would if we were in their shoes. All of that money disappears from the system, along with all of the job opportunities they provide to "the poor" you seem to care about. Sometimes less is more if you want a healthy economy, @Xzi.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...could-face-tax-rates-up-to-97-5-under-sanders


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> A +90% tax rate for "the 1%" is not "center-left" by any European standard. Venezuelan standard, maybe, but not European. If Sanders' plan was enacted, the absolute peak of the income scale would face an effective tax rate of 97.5%. They'd immediately move all of their assets abroad, as you and I would if we were in their shoes. All of that money disappears from the system, along with all of the job opportunities they provide to "the poor" you seem to care about. Sometimes less is more if you want a healthy economy, @Xzi.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...could-face-tax-rates-up-to-97-5-under-sanders


Considering he was one of the people egregiously misusing and directing the term "communist" at Sanders, Bloomberg is a particularly biased and untrustworthy source in this case, don't you think?

Even by American standards, a top tax rate of 70% used to be considered typical and not particularly noteworthy.  Y'know, back when a single full-time job could support a family of four and the American dream was actually achievable.  Sanders' plan would put the top tax bracket at closer to 50%, so not even nearly a return to form in that regard.

Also, the Panama Papers showed us that the wealthy are already doing everything in their power to avoid paying taxes, regardless of effective tax rate.  Slashing taxes as the Trump administration has done simply ensures that they pay absolutely nothing, and it leaves us with insufficient stimulus funds in an emergency.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Considering he was one of the people egregiously misusing and directing the term "communist" at Sanders, Bloomberg is a particularly biased and untrustworthy source in this case, don't you think?
> 
> Even by American standards, a top tax rate of 70% used to be considered typical and not particularly noteworthy.  Y'know, back when a single full-time job could support a family of four and the American dream was actually achievable.  Sanders' plan would put the top tax bracket at closer to 50%, so not even nearly a return to form in that regard.
> 
> Also, the Panama Papers showed us that the wealthy are already doing everything in their power to avoid paying taxes, regardless of effective tax rate.  Slashing taxes as the Trump administration has done simply ensures that they pay absolutely nothing, and it leaves us with insufficient stimulus funds in an emergency.


The top tax bracket and the effective tax rate are not one and the same - you're omitting deductibles. Your camp likes to call them "loopholes", but in reality they're intentional tax relief. In the 1950's the top bracket was 91%, but the effective tax rate was somewhere around 42%. That's the difference between stimulating the economy and slitting its throat.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Your camp likes to call them "loopholes", but in reality they're intentional tax relief.


That's the difference between raging against the machine and raging on behalf of the machine, I suppose.  I simply can't find the motivation to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify the world's largest corporations, such as Amazon and Apple, paying zero in taxes.  The rich and the powerful seemingly don't even have to pretend any more that the US has anything other than a trickle-up economy.  Not when so many people living in trailer parks are brainwashed enough to defend that brand of oligarchy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2020)

Xzi said:


> That's the difference between raging against the machine and raging on behalf of the machine, I suppose.  I simply can't find the motivation to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify the world's largest corporations, such as Amazon and Apple, paying zero in taxes.  The rich and the powerful seemingly don't even have to pretend any more that the US has anything other than a trickle-up economy.  Not when so many people living in trailer parks are brainwashed enough to defend that brand of oligarchy.


They don't "pay zero" in taxes, plural. In 2019 Amazon paid:

$1b in federal income tax ($900m deferred, but still payable)
$2.4b in other federal taxes (payroll, customs etc.)
$1.6b in local and state taxes (property, gross receipts etc.)
$9b in sales and use taxes (collected and remitted on behalf of their Marketplace users, preventing lost tax revenue)
Even in the years when the company did pay zero in the federal income tax, they paid other taxes just fine, both on the federal and local level. The idea that they're operating "for free" is ridiculous - it's stupid when Sanders says it, it's stupid when Trump says it. The company is single-handedly keeping the USPS afloat, 40% of Amazon packages are handled by the postal service, they're pumping the institution with money and yet USPS still manages to fumble and post losses. It's almost as if it was inefficient and a private entity would've done a better job.

https://blog.aboutamazon.com/job-creation-and-investment/amazons-economic-impact-in-the-u-s


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> They don't "pay zero" in taxes, plural. In 2019 Amazon paid:
> 
> $1b in federal income tax ($900m deferred, but still payable)
> $2.4b in other federal taxes (payroll, customs etc.)
> ...


Yet another difference between the left and the right, I can't simply take Amazon's own PR website at face value.  Assuming these numbers are at all accurate, they still aren't accounting for how much Amazon takes right back out of the government honeypot, or how little Bezos pays in taxes on a personal level.  I equate it to that BP ad campaign they ran patting themselves on the back for cleaning up a disaster they were entirely to blame for creating in the first place.



Foxi4 said:


> It's almost as if it was inefficient and a private entity would've done a better job.


It's almost as if packages aren't the only things sent through the mail.  Neither UPS nor FedEx nor any other private entity is jumping at the chance to deliver letters, because they know they'd post much bigger losses than USPS during the attempt.  Just like with Medicare, it's far more efficient without the profit motive's interference, so Republicans have to consistently underfund both programs in order to make them appear to be failing.  At least to people whose only "research" on the topic entails watching Fox News.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Yet another difference between the left and the right, I can't simply take Amazon's own PR website at face value. Assuming these numbers are at all accurate, they still aren't accounting for how much Amazon takes right back out of the government honeypot, or how little Bezos pays in taxes on a personal level.  I equate it to that BP ad campaign they ran patting themselves on the back for cleaning up a disaster they were entirely to blame for creating in the first place.
> 
> It's almost as if packages aren't the only things sent through the mail.  Neither UPS nor FedEx nor any other private entity is jumping at the chance to deliver letters, because they know they'd post much bigger losses than USPS during the attempt.  Just like with Medicare, it's far more efficient without the profit motive's interference, so Republicans have to consistently underfund both programs in order to make them appear to be failing.  At least to people whose only "research" on the topic entails watching Fox News.


You can find their figures in their 10-K, which they post anually. The 10-K is a legal requirement that must be posted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It's a rather boring read, but go nuts if you want to do some extensive research - it's a public document available on sec.gov. Keep in mind that Amazon is an international corporation - they don't just pay taxes in the U.S., the company pays taxes in every country they operate in. You have to make a provision for that before you tax them at a ridiculous rate.

As far as Bezos himself is concerned, why are you interested in his money? It belongs to him. The general sentiment of "we need to take the money away from the billionaires" is nothing more than envy, you can dress it up if you want but ultimately you think he has "too much money" and you're somehow in deservement of it. You're under the mistaken impression that you would spend it better than he does, or that the government would, when in reality he seems to have a history of investing it well - y'know, on account of him being a billionaire. Of course I do know that this falls on deaf ears, I understand that you believe this money is the result of exploiting workers and so on and so forth, so I won't really explore the subject further since this is a thread about Sanders, who is a millionaire himself.

Sanders' net worth is estimated to be $2.5m, so he's very much in the millionaire class he rails against. He has the *option* to refuse his senator's salary of $174k annually to ensure that his wage, paid for with people's taxes, goes towards government initiatives, but he hasn't done that. He *could* live off of his book royalties, which amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars according to his tax returns, but doesn't. Why is that, @Xzi? Is Sanders also too rich, or are we only upset at the productive rich people who generate jobs and provide worthwhile services?

You know how it goes - "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye"? Perhaps the Sanders fan base should put his feet to the fire regarding his own wealth before they follow him into an even bigger fire at the detriment of the economy, both domestic and global.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Now you're just being completely nonsensical.  Bernie's policies are center-left at best by European and world standards.  Warren would be center-right by those same standards.  Neither is in any way "extreme."



Again, no, you just don't like to hear it.

I didn't call Bernie anything.

I called his stans extremists.

Which they are.

And you're one of them.

Also no, he'd be very 'left' in most of the world, including Europe.


----------



## morvoran (Apr 11, 2020)

BORTZ said:


> You don't send volunteer workers into a garbage dump to "clean up". That would be a waste of resources and frankly, irresponsible.


 I don't think the entire site is a garbage dump.  That's not a nice thing to say.  Unless my report button has been disabled, I have reported posts in other sections and the posts are still there.  That's why I made that comment.

Plus, haven't you heard of that Republican guy who went into Baltimore and Los Angeles and cleaned up those garbage dump cities with several others who volunteered their time?  Maybe we need more right wing mods here to get things done?  *Shrugs*


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> They don't "pay zero" in taxes, plural. In 2019 Amazon paid:
> 
> $1b in federal income tax ($900m deferred, but still payable)
> $2.4b in other federal taxes (payroll, customs etc.)
> ...




Corporate taxes are just passed on to the consumer anyway, built into the price of the goods or services the company provides. If you use Amazon, _you're_ paying their taxes. Do you want to pay more?


----------



## Viri (Apr 11, 2020)

Remember kids, Reddit/Twitter =/= IRL

Just because someone is super popular on Reddit, and just because something trends countless times on Twitter doesn't mean it's popular on the outside. The outside and the online world are completely different. Twitter and Reddit are some of the biggest echo chambers. If IRL thought like Twitter and Reddit, Bernie would have swept all the states. When in reality, Bernie's voters couldn't get off their asses and vote in droves. Also, black people really like Biden a lot more than Bernie.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You're under the mistaken impression that you would spend it better than he does


You're under the mistaken impression that he spends it at all instead of hoarding it in various offshore bank accounts and tax havens.  Thus there is no debate that the working class would spend it "better," they have to spend it in order to procure the necessities, which in turn ends up supporting businesses both large and small.  Bezos couldn't spend all his money in one hundred lifetimes if he tried, and he's not trying.



Foxi4 said:


> Sanders' net worth is estimated to be $2.5m, so he's very much in the millionaire class he rails against. He has the *option* to refuse his senator's salary of $174k annually to ensure that his wage, paid for with people's taxes, goes towards government initiatives, but he hasn't done that. He *could* live off of his book royalties, which amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars according to his tax returns, but doesn't. Why is that, @Xzi? Is Sanders also too rich, or are we only upset at the productive rich people who generate jobs and provide worthwhile services?


His net worth was below 1 million before he released his book, and writing said book was more work than 95% of American CEOs have done in their entire lifetime.  Trump is a prime example, having never once faced the consequences of his actions and managing to fail his way to the very top every step of the way.  Average Americans don't get billion-dollar credit lines from foreign banks that they can simply refuse to pay back because of how much influence their daddies hold.

Again this argument is disingenuous anyway, since if Bernie was destitute and leaving nothing for his family you'd leap at the chance to attack him for that.  Not to mention Bernie never once stated he wouldn't be paying the same tax rate he planned to impose on other millionaires.  I can only wager a guess that you assume every politician on Earth is a hypocrite because all the politicians you've thrown your support behind have proven themselves as such.



Waygeek said:


> I called his stans extremists.


Which is a meaningless generalization with no evidence to back it.  A lot of Bernie supporters are on the younger side and will be voting for the first time in this election.  If it only took 18 years to radicalize every single one of them, then America is far more fucked up than Bernie gives it credit for.



Hanafuda said:


> Corporate taxes are just passed on to the consumer anyway, built into the price of the goods or services the company provides. If you use Amazon, _you're_ paying their taxes. Do you want to pay more?


To some extent this is true, but death and taxes are both inevitable anyway.  The working class may as well get something back for the taxes they put in, rather than continuing to give all of their taxes to corporations.


----------



## Viri (Apr 11, 2020)

Also, another thing. Here is a bit of a piece of advice. If you're ever running for any office, never ever ever ever let anyone in the audience or in public high jack your microphone during a speech. It makes you look very very weak.

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



Xzi said:


> Warren hired a bunch of ex-Hillary staffers and then failed to win her own home state.


The back stabbing to Bernie was pretty fucked up. Also, she really let Trump get into her head. Her countless rants on Twitter, and when she got a DNA test, which pissed off Native Americans was pretty cringe worthy. For days that's all she fucking spoke about, was paragraphs on Twitter about him pissing her off. It just became embarrassing after a point. Also, it turns out that most Americans on this board are most likely more "Native American" than she is.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 11, 2020)

i'm personally sick of american politics i just want the world to burn at this point


----------



## tofast4u (Apr 11, 2020)

Thank god this communist globalist dropped out.  Trump 2020


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 11, 2020)

ok so maybe this quarintie is making me a bit more psychotic than normal but to put it bluntly we are FUCKED with so many ways that we'll wind up screwed (Corona virus, North Korea ISIS) I'm supprised we're all not dead (yet)


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

tofast4u said:


> Thank god this communist globalist dropped out. Trump 2020


"Thank god the communist globalist dropped out.  Vote fascist globalist 2020!  Gotta love Israel and Saudi Arabia pulling America's strings!"


----------



## morvoran (Apr 11, 2020)

Viri said:


> Here is a bit of a piece of advice. If you're ever running for any office, never ever ever ever let anyone in the audience or in public high jack your microphone during a speech. It makes you look very very weak.


 Just imagine how he'd handle China and Russia.  President Xi and Putin would just take over the US as he steps to the side and let's it happen.  Weak old socialist POS Bernie wouldn't stand a chance against them.  We'd all have to learn Mandarin and/or russian.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> You're under the mistaken impression that he spends it at all instead of hoarding it in various offshore bank accounts and tax havens.  Thus there is no debate that the working class would spend it "better," they have to spend it in order to procure the necessities, which in turn ends up supporting businesses both large and small.  Bezos couldn't spend all his money in one hundred lifetimes if he tried, and he's not trying.
> 
> His net worth was below 1 million before he released his book, and writing said book was more work than 95% of American CEOs have done in their entire lifetime.  Trump is a prime example, having never once faced the consequences of his actions and managing to fail his way to the very top every step of the way.  Average Americans don't get billion-dollar credit lines from foreign banks that they can simply refuse to pay back because of how much influence their daddies hold.
> 
> ...


Bezos *most definitely* doesn't "hide his billions" in off-shore bank accounts, he has it invested in the stock market, among other things. The reason why rich people stay rich is because they put their money to work - by investing a significant portion of their money into stock they both stimulate economic growth *and* benefit long-term. Whatever money he has that's not in the stock market is probably invested in other things, like real estate. You and other Berners have to get the idea that people have pillows filled with dollar bills and swimming pools full of freshly-minted gold coins out of your heads, that is not how this works. The majority of Bezos' wealth is not immediately available to him - he can't go to Target and spend his Apple stock on a new TV. How does that stack up to "give it to the working class so that they can buy bread, eat it and... and then what?" - your plan is short-lived. I don't know why you wouldn't cut out the middle man and simply abolish the profit motive while you're at it, you're one step removed from an actual commune and this way you're making your vision more complicated than it needs to be.

This, along with a myriad of other reasons, is precisely why the "wealth tax" doesn't work - in order for the federal government to tax someone like that based on their overall accumulated wealth, that person would *have* to liquidate their investments - I very much doubt that he has a couple million dollars of disposable income annually to just drop into the pot because Sanders says so. Now, apply that to the entire nation and you have a perfect recipe for a financial crisis, not because the market is doing poorly, but because the fed has created conditions wherein investors *have* to pull their money out of the stock market in order to pay their excessive tax burden. It also creates a domino effect where all of a sudden people are selling stock, but nobody's buying it, so it gets progressively devalued until the stock that people *do* hold on to is worth nothing. If I was taxed 1% on my wealth tomorrow, I would have to scramble to pay that, and I don't know if I'd be able to at the drop of a hat. I own property, for starters. Add savings to that, and whatever else they consider to be "wealth", and even 1% ends up being a good couple k's. I can't magic that money into existence, I would have to liquidate assets. This problem doesn't just affect you or me, it scales upwards - the more "wealth" you own the more daunting that percentage is. Sanders' tax proposals simply do not account for what is and is not disposable income, and that's a problem.

To clarify, I don't think Bernie is necessarily a hypocrite, I think he's a talented evangelist, and his religion is socialism. This isn't a new thing either - after rejecting God most Marxists fill the hole it leaves behind with government, everyone is compelled to worship something. Sanders charms his droves of young followers by being the loving old grandpa who will wag his fingers at the bad corporations that are oppressing everyone, apparently. He's going to take away all their money and give it to you, his follower. You needn't worry about food, or lodge, or your healthcare, or education, or any future prospect because Papa Government, with Grandpa Sanders at the helm, will make sure that you live a good life. This works because young people feel cheated in the current system, and in many ways they were cheated out of prosperity, he's just wrong about the root cause. He sells escape from responsibility, and perhaps he even believes his vision himself... or he's a good conman - only he knows the answer. Either way, he's made a good living out of it, I hope he keeps on selling books, since he's obviously not giving them away for free - if you want *that* kind of education, you'll have to pay up.

It wasn't a "disingenuous argument" so much as an attempt to figure out how much, in your mind, is too much. To me, no amount is too much, but you obviously have a number in mind and I would love to know what it is. I've had this conversation with a number of socialists in the past and besides the typical buzzword of "1%" which doesn't mean anything since it's such a broad spectrum, they can't come up with one. If you "have a number, but can't put your finger on it", consider the following - if dealing with money was simple, everyone would be a millionaire. This isn't a "but they're hoarding all the capital" problem, this is a "some people come up with great ideas, find investors, capitalise on them and become rich, and other people just don't" problem. I will happily err on the side of innovation rather than redistribution - I am perfectly happy and comfortable with people keeping what belongs to them, no matter how large the sum is. It's not my money, but it *could be* if I manage to offer attractive goods and services on the marketplace.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You and other Berners have to get the idea that people have pillows filled with dollar bills and swimming pools full of freshly-minted gold coins out of your heads, that is not how this works.


Awfully naive of you.  No, it's not like the cartoons, but his money does just sit in accounts where it collects interest.  No billionaire with a corporation's full resources at his disposal exposes his own money to the risks of the stock market.  He just "invests" Amazon's money in that type of thing instead, including buying back their own stock.



Foxi4 said:


> It wasn't a "disingenuous argument" so much as an attempt to figure out how much, in your mind, is too much.


It's not about "having too much," or I'd insist that all gains past a certain amount be taxed at 100%.  It's about contributing too little relative to income to consider yourself a citizen of this country and continue enjoying the privileges that brings with it.  Let alone the moral and ethical implications of allowing children and veterans to starve on the streets in the richest nation on Earth.  Most cities in the US haven't had their infrastructure updated since the "greed is good" era of the1980s, and thus they're becoming harder and harder to distinguish from cities in third-world countries. The problem with worshiping the "free market" is that it ties the amount of freedom an individual has to the amount of zeroes in their bank account, and/or their parents' bank account.  Nowhere is this more evident than with the US' long history of slave labor, culminating with American prisoners becoming the modern-day slaves.  Which is perhaps fine by miserable dusty cunts like Ayn Rand who slowly drive everyone in their life away from them, but it's no way to run a supposedly civilized country founded after the dark ages.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Awfully naive of you.  No, it's not like the cartoons, but his money does just sit in accounts where it collects interest.  No billionaire with a full corporation's resources at his disposal exposes his own money to the risks of the stock market.  He just "invests" Amazon's money in that type of thing instead, including buying back their own stock.
> 
> It's not about "having too much," or I'd insist that all gains past a certain amount be taxed at 100%.  It's about contributing too little relative to income to consider yourself a citizen of this country and continue enjoying the privileges that brings with it.  Let alone the moral and ethical implications of allowing children and veterans to starve on the streets in the richest nation on Earth.  Most cities in the US haven't had their infrastructure updated since the "greed is good" era of the1980s, and thus they're becoming harder and harder to distinguish from cities in third-world countries. The problem with worshiping the "free market" is that it ties the amount of freedom an individual has to the amount of zeroes in their bank account, and/or their parents' bank account.  Nowhere is this more evident than with the US' long history of slave labor, culminating with American prisoners becoming the modern-day slaves.  Which is perhaps fine by miserable dusty cunts like Ayn Rand slowly who drive everyone in their life away from them, but it's no way to run a supposedly civilized country founded after the dark ages.


Jeff Bezos' moral and ethical responsibilities in regards to the homeless, the sick, veterans and children starving in the streets are exactly the same as yours, they do not scale up or down with income. He is not magically more responsible for their well-being than you are based on his wealth, he just has better means compared to you.

As for stock buy back, it's regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Rule 10B-18. If what you're trying to say is that Bezos buys stock cheap and sells it dear, congratulations, you've just figured out how the stock market works. He's also using his own money - Amazon is a corporation, not his private fund. He can't dip into its budget and just spend it willy-nilly - that's an asinine suggestion. What you're suggesting is literally fraud, that's not his money to spend, even if he is CEO.

Fortunately we don't have to guess how Jeff Bezos makes and spends his money since he's quite happy to tell us - space exploration and fighting climate change are big ticket items on his shopping list. Truly a heartless man, if only he contributed his fair share.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-net-worth-life-spending-2018-8


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Jeff Bezos' moral and ethical responsibilities in regards to the homeless, the sick, veterans and children starving in the streets are exactly the same as yours, they do not scale up or down with income. He is not magically more responsible for their well-being than you are based on his higher income, he just had better means compared to you.


That's just about the biggest load of boot-licking horse shit that I've ever heard.  Whether it's his set-in-stone, god-mandated responsibility to act or not is frankly irrelevant, the man could solve world hunger in a single day and still come out a billionaire on the other side of it.  If I had that kind of wealth it wouldn't take but a millisecond to decide to pull that trigger, and the same should be true of any billionaire who's managed to hold on to even a shred of humanity throughout their immense capital gains.  Unfortunately, the hoarding of wealth does simply morph into a game for most of them after a while, with anybody under a certain net worth transforming into their disposable pawns.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> That's just about the biggest load of boot-licking horse shit that I've ever heard.  Whether it's his set-in-stone, god-mandated responsibility to act or not is frankly irrelevant, the man could solve world hunger in a single day and still come out a billionaire on the other side of it.  If I had that kind of wealth it wouldn't take but a millisecond to decide to pull that trigger, and the same should be true of any billionaire who's managed to hold on to even a shred of humanity throughout their immense capital gains.  Unfortunately, the hoarding of wealth does simply morph into a game for most of them after a while, with anybody under a certain net worth transforming into their disposable pawns.


I sure hope you're never put in a position where those noble principles are tested - principles are great, they make you feel good, but you can't eat them. The man started a $10 billion dollar research fund helping scientists fight climate change, in 2018 he spent $2 billion on the homeless, he's in the process of building a network of tuition-free pre-schools with full scholarship, I don't know how much you expect him to spend on things he has *no obligation to pay for whatsoever*. Anything above zero is a charitable contribution worthy of praise, and although Bezos is more frugal than his peers, he certainly does more than you or me.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The man started a $10 billion dollar research fund helping scientists fight climate change, in 2018 he spent $2 billion on the homeless


Literally the change he finds between his couch cushions, which he's more than willing to spend to keep the "peasants" in the media and the government off his back.  If history teaches us anything, however, it's just a matter of time until the next "let them eat cake" tipping point arises.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Literally the change he finds between his couch cushions, which he's more than willing to spend to keep the "peasants" in the media and the government off his back.  If history teaches us anything, however, it's just a matter of time until the next "let them eat cake" tipping point arises.


You do realise that his net worth is $130b, and most of that is not liquid, right? Just the climate pledge alone is to the tune of 5% of his total. I'd love to see you spend 5% of your total wealth on charity. If 5% of what you own can fit between your couch cushions, you either don't have a lot of wealth or you have a sizeable couch. Not that I'm really trying to convince you specifically, I know your mind is set, but the other people reading this thread can draw their own conclusions from this exchange.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You do realise that his net worth is $130b


And that's after already being halved from his divorce.  Besides, Bezos is just one example, I didn't intend to make him the entire focus of the discussion.  The fact that Amazon has to be considered to be "benevolent" among the corporate world simply for having enough cash reserves to not demand a COVID-19 bailout check speaks to just how little dignity the working class is permitted to retain in this nation.  And yes, they also have a $15/hour wage, but that means next to nothing in the face of abysmal working conditions and their push toward automation.

If ever there were the perfect image to describe just how deeply the free market and capitalism have failed us, it's probably this one:


----------



## Seliph (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> consider the following - if dealing with money was simple, everyone would be a millionaire.


Flawed argument
1. Money is finite so unless you want to horribly inflate the dollar, no one's becoming a millionaire. (Not that anyone should be in the first place)
2. If money wasn't simple, people like Donald Trump who fuck up and bankrupt several of their own institutions (i.e casinos) wouldn't be billionaires. Clearly there's something keeping these people afloat and lemme tell ya it isn't their brains. It's that once you get big and rich like Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or any number of upstart capitalists, it's very easy to keep ahold of that money because the system we live in kinda just allows that to happen.  Money (often inherited) = power, power = influence, influence = more money.

Money is simple. It's the systems that rich bureaucrats put in place to allow them to hold onto their wealth that are complex, unfair and should be dismantled.

That's why people believe in the distribution of wealth. Not because everyone wants to become a millionaire, not because everyone wants a sweet taste of that government cheese, but because the people who are millionaires often float by on unearned money and the disproportionate amount of power and influence that money gives to stupid people. Meanwhile, the ever-growing lower class is expected to sit by and act like this system is okay when they go to their third job at 2 am on a Sunday just so they can barely scrape by on minimum wage accrued by shipping boxes for some lazy CEO making millions by the second. We give people positions of power simply because of their financial influence. Not because they are worthy, and not because they work hard, but because they have enough money and therefore enough power to push their will around and exploit as many people below them as possible. 

That's not meritocratic, that's giving power to the highest (and often least scrupulous) bidder.

We live in an oligarchy - or - better yet -

a *society*.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Flawed argument
> 1. Money is finite so unless you want to horribly inflate the dollar, no one's becoming a millionaire. (Not that anyone should be in the first place)
> 2. If money wasn't simple, people like Donald Trump who fuck up and bankrupt several of their own institutions (i.e casinos) wouldn't be billionaires. Clearly there's something keeping these people afloat and lemme tell ya it isn't their brains. It's that once you get big and rich like Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos, or any number of upstart capitalists, it's very easy to keep ahold of that money because the system we live in kinda just allows that to happen.  Money (often inherited) = power, power = influence, influence = more money.
> 
> ...


They believe in redistribution of wealth because they're greedy and they covet. The belief that you are entitled to your neighbour's wealth exclusively on the grounds that he has more than you do is what's flawed. If three people who have little and one person who has lots "decide in a democratic vote" to take money away from "the wealthy guy", it's still a robbery, just with extra steps. People can choose to participate in charity, but the line is drawn at coercion. None of their money is "unearned".

The idea that "the rich" are wealthy because they received an inheritence is a complete fabrication supported by no data whatsoever. These cases are actually in the minority. Market research shows that 67.7% of millionaires are self-made, 23.7% inherited some wealth and built upon it and only 8.5% inherited a fortune. People who are rich only stay rich if they know how to handle their money, income mobility is incredibly high and people move in and out of the top 10% all the time.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/maj...est-people-are-self-made-says-new-report.html

Donald Trump who "fucks up his investments" is involved in over 400 ventures under The Trump Organisation umbrella, the gross majority of them are profitable. On average, 90% of startup business ventures fail within the first three years of operation - in the case of Trump, an analysis of his latest 60 shows that about 1/3rd failed, 1/3rd survived, but performed below expectations and the last 1/3rd succeeded. That's a good success rate, certainly outperforms the average.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...s-actually-a-pretty-good-record/#38348936486a

You also don't understand how the financial system works if you think this is a zero-sum game - the entire world economy is based on *generating* wealth. To use my favourite example, when you put bread, ham, cheese and some spread together, you form something that is more valuable than the sum of its parts - a sandwich. There is a difference between your bill of materials and the value of the item you've just created - that's your profit margin. Congratulations, you've just generated wealth.

Money is just an abstraction we've invented to quantify generated value, it's a representation of productivity. The fact that there's a "finite amount of money" printed/minted at any given time is completely irrelevant because it doesn't account for the fact that the buying power of currency constantly fluctuates. A dollar is only worth as much as the economic output it represents.

If the society you're advocating for is going to be based on cutting your best and brightest at the knee to make sure they're as short as everybody else instead of propping them up, you can keep it. My country has been through that exercise in the 80's, we're not looking for a round two and we certainly don't recommend it to anyone.

Your ideas are not novel - they've been tried and they failed before. Venezuela was held up as a shining example of successful social reform for years, until it wasn't anymore. The same applies to every single country in history that pushed socialist policies past the breaking point, destroying their economy in the process. There's a healthy middle ground here where the amount contributed is fair, but that point is not at 97.5%.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Which is a meaningless generalization with no evidence to back it.  A lot of Bernie supporters are on the younger side and will be voting for the first time in this election.  If it only took 18 years to radicalize every single one of them, then America is far more fucked up than Bernie gives it credit for.



Again, it's not. Their every abrasive, attacking, toxic post is all the evidence required, including yours.

The fact that these extremists still thought it was a good idea to run after his heart 'sploded is evidence enough, in fact this only served to whip them up into more of a fanatical frenzy.

Also... you think it takes more than 18 years to radicalize someone? LMFAO it can be done in 18 days.

The thing is... young people are immature. With little life experience. That's why Bernie's blanket statements that he could never have realistically pulled off appealed to them.



tofast4u said:


> Thank god this communist globalist dropped out.  Trump 2020



I was wondering where the radicalized right was. Took them a while to show, and on a gaming forum. Quite odd.


----------



## tofast4u (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> "Thank god the communist globalist dropped out.  Vote fascist globalist 2020!  Gotta love Israel and Saudi Arabia pulling America's strings!"


Gotta love Hamas and Iran pulling your strings.


----------



## notimp (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Bezos *most definitely* doesn't "hide his billions" in off-shore bank accounts, he has it invested in the stock market, among other things. The reason why rich people stay rich is because they put their money to work - by investing a significant portion of their money into stock they both stimulate economic growth *and* benefit long-term.


Yeah, works wonderfully.

(Minus the hyperbole (the channel is not a good source - they are mostly out to produce outrage bait).)

The issue for a long time has been, that there is much, much more money in derivative markets, than in the real economy:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/the...economy-signaling-it-could-be-overvalued.html

Meaning. If somewhere in the world - there is growth (lets say india), and people can be convinced to invest in 'something' that promises them a better return. But the real economy isn't going so great in the developed world. You can basically make more money, by faking other investors out (invest into something they dont really understand), signaling opportunity, then cashing out and move on, while they flood in inflating the actual worth of the opportunity. Meaning - you get rich, not because you invest in the right opportunities, but in the right trends.

Meaning - that you make more money from 'virtual' transactions (having nothing to do with investments that reach any real world economy), taking other peolpes money. Essentially - playing casino.

Meaning - if you can do that, because you find/overexaggerate an opportunity in lets stay with india as an example - none of your investment helps people in the actual economy - much less in the US (or europe, or...).

Same with that money being invested in automation, or digitization (takes away well paying jobs, doesnt produce new ones).

Meaning - currently there is so much money in play looking for returns (boomer generation looking for a better retirement), with essentially no one believing in (sustainable) economic growth in the developed world, that that money is switching hands in the derivative market, like in a casino (some people loose, some people win) - ending up with big wealth people, because they can represent an aura of 'we know what we are doing' better. (Think of chip leader in poker, not taking substantial risks anymore, while blinds dont rise - similar mechanics.)

Which means, millenials are f*cked generationally. For one and a half centuries already. No one will give them (big'ish) credit (if they are starting out). They are unable to accumulate wealth through wage growth. They cant save up (0 percent interest rates after inflation). And they are told by boomers, to life a little less, for the environment in 100 years.

The only thing they can do essentially is innovate (in an economy where no one believes in sustained growth past 10 years on any thing one can come up with currently (it seems)), consume everything they have (because tomorrow it will be worth less), and inherit wealth.

Thats it.

Oh and Bezos is actively destroying city centers and small and medium size companies - through the amazon business model - which optimizes for, everyone stay at home, and click on skinner box.

(Sample image of a skinner box:





 )

Here is where tax havens come in - because no one of the bigger wealth people believes that states can solve any of that - they now especially tend to not pay wealth- or income taxes if they dont have to.

(Also - if you make money in a casino, you are relatively fiscally mobile (not invested into the real world, much), meaning its harder to tax you. (In the internet age, you dont need suitcases with money going over borders anymore.))


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Again, it's not. Their every abrasive, attacking, toxic post is all the evidence required, including yours.


You've been nothing but abrasive and toxic yourself since joining this conversation.  My first reply was a pragmatic breakdown of why Elizabeth Warren's campaign failed, and that one little dose of reality seemed to have been more than you could handle.  Bernie's campaign was never about a single person, and work on the movement he began will continue long after he's passed away.



Waygeek said:


> The fact that these extremists still thought it was a good idea to run after his heart 'sploded is evidence enough, in fact this only served to whip them up into more of a fanatical frenzy.
> 
> Also... you think it takes more than 18 years to radicalize someone? LMFAO it can be done in 18 days.


The idea that the majority of America's youth are extremists is itself an extremist position to take.  Not to mention the joy you seem to find in medical emergencies befalling those who are politically opposed to you.  But I suppose that's just a microcosm of how far establishment neoliberals have dragged political discourse into the mud, all the while claiming it's everybody else's fault.


----------



## notimp (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> You've been nothing but abrasive and toxic yourself since joining this conversation


Dont use toxic as a descriptor. All it describes is "you are one on the outside of our circle - never to be let in". That its entire meaning. As soon as that word falls, any argument is over.

You cant debate constantly uttering, that the other side the antichrist.  Dont be lazy - state why you dont agree with the other sides statement. Never just say - because they are toxic.

Its so stupid, I'm constantly amazed, that there are still people that havent realized that that word is only used to win arguments, by posturing, then turning away and leaving the room.

While normally - the person leaving a discussion usually has lost it. So toxic also serves as a warm and fuzzy blanket for you not being able to win an exchange. Telling yourself, that it wasnt your fault - no, it was the other sides, who clearly, no obviously was toxic..


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

notimp said:


> Dont use toxic as a descriptor. All it describes is "you are one on the outside of our circle - never to be let in". That its entire meaning. As soon as that word falls, any argument is over.


Typically I wouldn't.  It's only in this case that the other party in the conversation was repeatedly using the word as a crutch, and so I felt the need to point out the hypocrisy in it.


----------



## notimp (Apr 11, 2020)

Just sayin'


----------



## Seliph (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> They believe in redistribution of wealth because they're greedy and they covet. The belief that you are entitled to your neighbour's wealth exclusively on the grounds that he has more than you do is what's flawed. If three people who have little and one person who has lots "decide in a democratic vote" to take money away from "the wealthy guy", it's still a robbery, just with extra steps. People can choose to participate in charity, but the line is drawn at coercion. None of their money is "unearned".
> 
> The idea that "the rich" are wealthy because they received an inheritence is a complete fabrication supported by no data whatsoever. These cases are actually in the minority. Market research shows that 67.7% of millionaires are self-made, 23.7% inherited some wealth and built upon it and only 8.5% inherited a fortune. People who are rich only stay rich if they know how to handle their money, income mobility is incredibly high and people move in and out of the top 10% all the time.
> 
> ...



It was an incorrect statement that most "self-made" get inheritances, that's my bad. But if you look at a large number of "self-made" millionaires it's pretty evident who they are. The majority of them come from mid-upper class families. The majority of them are white males. The majority of them have gone to college. Yes, there are exceptions, but the general trend for most "self-made" millionaires are white male college graduates from generally affluent families. Looking at the 67.7% you've cited, a lot of that 67.7% appears to fit this description.

So yes, they may have put their time and effort into making their fortune, but you cannot deny the socioeconomic factors that weight that wealth in their favor. It's much easier to become affluent as a white male because most rich people are white males (and they wanna keep it that way) and if you come from a family of means (again, most of these self-made millionaires do), you are much more able to go to college and therefore have a greater range of opportunities to gain wealth.

The problem is that if you don't fit that criterion, it becomes much much harder to become rich, or even sustain yourself or a family. Again, redistribution of wealth is not just because we "want the rich people's money" it's because the rich people's money is used to perpetuate this cycle that only allows white college graduate males from affluent backgrounds to become rich (with some outliers). Like I said earlier, money = power, and the rich people in power are usually the ones that lobby against reducing the effects of climate change, that lobby against public education, and that lobby against fair and affordable health care. By redistributing that wealth, we take away the power of the few wealthy bureaucrats and give that power to the people, the ones who actually need it.

When you redistribute that wealth, opportunities open up. It becomes easier to afford housing, which in turn makes it easier to hold onto a job which in turn makes it easier to go to college which in turn gives you more opportunities to support an affluent lifestyle. If everyone has the opportunity to become affluent instead of just white college graduate males from affluent families, then the lower class shrinks, and the upper-middle-class becomes more diverse and therefore we get more diverse people in power, making our government more democratic because the people in power cater to more demographics than just white college graduate males from affluent families.

Redistribution of wealth is not and will never be about simply "taking away money from rich people", it's about providing the means of success to people who aren't predisposed to wealth, to people who aren't white males from affluent families.

Now I'm not saying it's bad to be a white male from a wealthy family, but it is a bad thing that the vast majority of rich people reflect these attributes because that shows a clear socioeconomic bias towards these people, which is undemocratic.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 11, 2020)

funny how the american people are hypocrites bernie sanders hell even Andrew Yang wanted to give you a check for a lot longer then this epidemic and you cried out socialism EVIL fast forward to now trump does the same thing and you idiots praise him i feel this should've been a sink or swim situation a 2nd great depression might make you rethink how you do things (like not be blinded by your political affiliation and use your damn noggin take in all the damn facts before pulling the lever at the voting machine)


----------



## SG854 (Apr 11, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> funny how the american people are hypocrites bernie sanders hell even Andrew Yang wanted to give you a check for a lot longer then this epidemic and you cried out socialism EVIL fast forward to now trump does the same thing and you idiots praise him i feel this should've been a sink or swim situation a 2nd great depression might make you rethink how you do things (like not be blinded by your political affiliation and use your damn noggin take in all the damn facts before pulling the lever at the voting machine)


There was no corona virus. You are comparing apples and oranges. There are always exceptions to the rules. Every single argument can be seen as hypocritical if you are uptight and not understanding of the situation. It's just a general idea that doesn't apply to every situation. Calling it hypocritical is arguing in bad faith that is not understanding of their perspective. 

Many conservatives see it as getting their money back that government took from them in taxes.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Many conservatives see it as getting their money back that government took from them in taxes.


Which is the very essence of socialism lol.  The working class getting something back for their taxes, whether it be healthcare, jobs programs, or UBI to make it through tough times.

Coronavirus has certainly exacerbated all our woes, but it wasn't the cause of all of them.  There really is no going back to "normal" after this, since many of the jobs lost will not be making a return.  Capitalism will demand sacrifices be made in order to uphold the farcical belief that unlimited growth is possible, and it won't be the upper class making them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Seliph said:


> It was an incorrect statement that most "self-made" get inheritances, that's my bad. But if you look at a large number of "self-made" millionaires it's pretty evident who they are. The majority of them come from mid-upper class families. The majority of them are white males. The majority of them have gone to college. Yes, there are exceptions, but the general trend for most "self-made" millionaires are white male college graduates from generally affluent families. Looking at the 67.7% you've cited, a lot of that 67.7% appears to fit this description.
> 
> So yes, they may have put their time and effort into making their fortune, but you cannot deny the socioeconomic factors that weight that wealth in their favor. It's much easier to become affluent as a white male because most rich people are white males (and they wanna keep it that way) and if you come from a family of means (again, most of these self-made millionaires do), you are much more able to go to college and therefore have a greater range of opportunities to gain wealth.
> 
> ...


Success is not democratic, nor should it be. Your fixation on race and sex is rather odd. I find it interesting that the people who claim to be against racism and sexism sure focus on sex and race a lot - me, I prefer a society based on merit.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Success is not democratic, nor should it be. Your fixation on race and sex to be rather odd. I find it interesting that the people who claim to be against racism and sexism sure focus on sex and race a lot - me, I prefer a society based on merit.


Too bad we don't live in a society based on merit as I established. It sure is interesting that I, (a person who is against racism and sexism) am interested in the welfare of those who are most affected economically and socially by issues such as racism and sexism (as well as classism).

I explained that (at least in America) we don't live in a merit-based society because the ones in power are the ones with money, and the ones with money are only able to obtain that money because the ones in power have a bias towards them. A bias that is typically racially, sexually, economically, and, most of all, politically motivated. This is obvious if you look at the demographics of most affluent people.

Thank you for pointing out that I see racism and sexism as a big issue.

Also by saying that "Success is not democratic, nor should it be" are you positing that democracy is bad? To be clear, I am not saying that you DO in fact believe that democracy is bad, I simply ask for clarification on that statement.

Also the statement "Success is not democratic" is in direct contradiction to your statement "I prefer a society based on merit". So uh... oops?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Too bad we don't live in a society based on merit as I established. It sure is interesting that I, (a person who is against racism and sexism) am interested in the welfare of those who are most affected economically and socially by issues such as racism and sexism (as well as classism).
> 
> I explained that (at least in America) we don't live in a merit-based society because the ones in power are the ones with money, and the ones with money are only able to obtain that money because the ones in power have a bias towards them. A bias that is typically racially, sexually, economically, and, most of all, politically motivated. This is obvious if you look at the demographics of most affluent people.
> 
> ...


Democracy is the best bad system of government we've come up with do far - it's tyranny of the stupid, but there is no better alternative, so it will do for our purposes. Success is not democratic - it is elective. You have to choose to put yourself forward first, take risks which either pay off or they don't, depending on a combination of skill, effort and a great degree of luck. This may involve a  bank loan - success is not based on safety, it's based on risk. There is a *democratic component* to success, and that component is the open market. Your customers have to choose between what you're offering and what the competition offers, and make a valued judgement on which product or service they choose to buy. The same translates to employers - you have to sell yourself to them as well, it's a contract in which you sell your time and expertise for money. Overall though success is not up to a vote, it's up to whether you have initiative or not.

You have an incorrect perception of equality wherein giving people who are poor free money will make them successful - it will not. Poor people overwhelmingly stay poor even when they're temporarily rich because they have a mindset that inevitably leads to failure - we know this because, statistically, 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt within the first couple of years after winning ludicrous amounts of money. They don't know how to invest, they don't take good financial advice, they don't save for a rainy day and blast through millions of dollars.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2016/01/why_do_70_percent_of_lottery_w.html

I have a feeling that the remaining 30% consists of sensible people who are successful in their own right, but overall poor people stay poor unless you lift them out of poverty, and the only way to lift them out of poverty is enabling them to climb out of it one dollar at a time in a healthy economy unencumbered by excessive taxation.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> The idea that the majority of America's youth are extremists is itself an extremist position to take.



Narrator: "It wasn't." 



Xzi said:


> Not to mention the joy you seem to find in medical emergencies befalling those who are politically opposed to you.



Love it when extremists put words in my mouth. I don't give a crap about him either way. 



Xzi said:


> establishment neoliberals



The cringe of listening to extremists. They have a label for fucking everything.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Democracy is the best bad system of government we've come up with do far - it's tyranny of the stupid, but there is no better alternative, so it will do for our purposes. Success is not democratic - it is elective. You have to choose to put yourself forward first, take risks which either pay off or they don't, depending on a combination of skill, effort and a great degree of luck. This may involve a  bank loan - success is not based on safety, it's based on risk. There is a democratic component to success, and that component is the open market. Your customers have to choose between what you're offering and what the competition offers, and make a valued judgement on which product or service they choose to buy. The same translates to employers - you have to sell yourself to them as well, it's a contract in which you sell your time and expertise for money. You have an incorrect perception of equality wherein giving people who are poor free money will make them successful - it will not. Poor people overwhelmingly stay poor even when they're temporarily rich because they have a mindset that inevitably leads to failure - we know this because, statistically, 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt within the first couple of years after winning ludicrous amounts of money. They don't know how to invest, they don't take good financial advice, they don't save for a rainy day and blast through millions of dollars.
> 
> https://www.cleveland.com/business/2016/01/why_do_70_percent_of_lottery_w.html
> 
> I have a feeling that the remaining 30% consists of sensible people who are successful in their own right, but overall poor people stay poor unless you lift them out of poverty, and the only way to lift them out of poverty is enabling them to climb out of it one dollar at a time in a healthy economy unencumbered by excessive taxation.


Stop saying I'm talking about giving people who are poor "free" money. I have established multiple times that I am not. I am not saying we should be giving people money, and I'm not saying that we should be taking that money from rich people.

I am saying that we direct the funds of rich people towards services that provide poor people venues for success. By taxing the rich more and stopping needless expenditure (specifically on the military) we direct those funds towards services such as affordable housing, universal health care, equal access education, etc. This provides these services to poor people who otherwise would not have access to them. This very clearly is not "giving people who are poor free money", obviously that is an inane idea. This is simply giving them access to the same services that give white college graduate males from affluent families (which will now be abbreviated as privileged persons) success. This is equal opportunity.

A person's success should not be dictated by their privilege, but it is. And until we are able to provide everyone with the services that privileged persons have access too, we will never have a truly democratic, meritocratic or egalitarian society.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Stop saying I'm talking about giving people who are poor "free" money. I have established multiple times that I am not. I am not saying we should be giving people money, and I'm not saying that we should be taking that money from rich people.
> 
> I am saying that we direct the funds of rich people towards services that provide poor people venues for success. By taxing the rich more and stopping needless expenditure (specifically on the military) we direct those funds towards services such as affordable housing, universal health care, equal access education, etc. This provides these services to poor people who otherwise would not have access to them. This very clearly is not "giving people who are poor free money", obviously that is an inane idea. This is simply giving them access to the same services that give white college graduate males from affluent families (which will now be abbreviated as privileged persons) success. This is equal opportunity.
> 
> A person's success should not be dictated by their privilege, but it is. And until we are able to provide everyone with the services that privileged persons have access too, we will never have a truly democratic, meritocratic or egalitarian society.


Ah, so it's not free money on a check, rather it's free money through a variety of inefficient government institutions, now I understand.

Obviously I'm caricaturising your stance a little bit here, but that's only because it's funny to me. The cost of additional taxation is just passed on to the consumers - if a company that sells 100 coffee mugs for $1 each gets taxed an additional 10% on those sales, they'll just price the cups at $1.10 to cover the difference, they're still making $100 because, presumably, that's the amount required to cover the cost of manufacturing and have some remaining profit margin. The consumer won't mind since it's just 10 cents, but on aggregate the price hike just funded the additional sales tax. Of course that means this 10 cents from consumers goes through an inefficient machine consisting of government pencil pushers, so you end up with 5 cents when all is said and done.

Now, I too believe that some services are essential, but make no mistake, we have a very different idea on what is and is not essential. Contrary to what you believe, you haven't "demonstrated" anything, you just said "this is how things are" and supported it with nothing but personal beliefs.

We should probably get back to Sanders and his campaign though, this isn't really an Economy 101 thread, we're straying off topic.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> if a company that sells 100 coffee mugs for $1 each gets taxed an additional 10% on those sales, they'll just price the cups at $1.10 to cover the difference. The consumer won't mind since it's just 10 cents, but on aggregate the price hike just funded the additional sales tax. Of course that means this 10 cents from consumers goes through an inefficient machine consisting of government pencil pushers, so you end up with 5 cents when all is said and done.



Which is why we tighter regulate companies so they can't do that. I also looked at the article in your last reply and it doesn't cite any studies so I doubt its validity.

Of course, I'm supporting my statements with personal belief, that's how politics work. That doesn't invalidate my belief or the points I've made. I've supplemented reasons for why I have those beliefs. Just because I personally believe something doesn't mean my belief is not factual or not based in fact. I could have non-factual personal beliefs, absolutely, but you cannot just invalidate my argument because of my personal beliefs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Which is why we tighter regulate companies so they can't do that. I also looked at the article in your last reply and it doesn't cite any studies so I doubt its validity.
> 
> Of course, I'm supporting my statements with personal belief, that's how politics work. That doesn't invalidate my belief or the points I've made. I've supplemented reasons for why I have those beliefs.


Can't do what? Set recommended retail prices for their products? Pray tell, how do you intend to enforce that? Price control is a characteristic of totalitarian governments, I hope you realise that. The government can't come into my house and tell me "you can't sell your couch on Craigslist for $100, you're going to sell it for $50 because that's our evaluation", I'm just not going to sell my couch at a loss and I'm pulling it off sale immediately. There are some regulations regarding *price gouging*, but that's a different story altogether, those are mostly effective in states of emergency, not everyday business.

As for your beliefs, they're inconsequential in a debate - I can believe in flying intergalactic hamsters, that doesn't make them real. This is a problem with a lot of Sanders' proposals and a lot of the demands of his fan base, and it is a fan base, not a political movement - they're not grounded in reality. These are things that you wish were real, but aren't, not even in the "European social-democies" you guys seem to love so much.

If I want to sell something that I own, *the market* will decide how much it's worth, not me, not you and not the government. I can advertise it at a price that I think is fair and customers will either buy it or they won't at that price point. There is a ceiling of price at which the customers will no longer buy the product because they will perceive it as overpriced, there is also a price floor at which the sales barely cover the cost of putting the product out there. You can't *force* me to sell products at prices lower than what it costs me to make them - that'd be indentured servitude, or slavery. In fact, I *have* to make a profit in order to operate, expand and, well, eat. If you artificially decrease my prices, I'm just going to go out of business and you're going to drink your coffee not out of a mug, but out of the jar it came in.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Can't do what? Set recommended retail prices for their products? Pray tell, how do you intend to enforce that? Price control is a characteristic of totalitarian governments, I hope you realise that. The government can't come into my house and tell me "you can't sell your couch on Craigslist for $100, you're going to sell it for $50 because that's our evaluation", I'm just not going to sell my couch at a loss and I'm pulling it off sale immediately. There are some regulations regarding *price gouging*, but that's a different story altogether, those are mostly effective in states of emergency, not everyday business.
> 
> As for your beliefs, they're inconsequential in a debate - I can believe in flying intergalactic hamsters, that doesn't make them real. This is a problem with a lot of Sanders' proposals and a lot of the demands of his fan base, and it is a fan base, not a political movement - they're not grounded in reality. These are things that you wish were real, but aren't, not even in the "European social-democies" you guys seem to love so much.
> 
> If I want to sell something that I own, *the market* will decide how much it's worth, not me, not you and not the government. I can advertise it at a price that I think is fair and customers will either buy it or they won't at that price point. There is a ceiling of price at which the customers will no longer buy the product because they will perceive it as overpriced, there is also a price bottom at which the sales barely cover the cost of putting the product out there. You can't *force* me to sell products at prices lower than what it costs me to make them - that'd be indentured servitude, or slavery. In fact, I *have* to make a profit in order to operate, expand and, well, eat. If you artificially decrease my prices, I'm just going to go out of business and you're going to drink your coffee not out of a mug, but out of the jar it came in.


Regarding beliefs, I elaborated on that point in an edit. You automatically assume that personal beliefs can't be factual, which is a fallacy. By that logic, I can say that your argument of "forcing someone to sell products at prices lower than what it costs you to make them is indentured servitude" is entirely invalid simply because you believe it, even though it may very well be absolutely correct.

You are correct that price control is totalitarian, I don't advocate for that. My statement was vague so I'll elaborate. I'm not saying we increase the sales tax on products because obviously that can easily lead to companies simply inflating the prices of their goods, but we should be increasing the income taxes on the CEOs and higher-ups in these businesses. This way, even if sales taxes are raised, these people within the companies are taxed proportionally to the wealth they generate. 

So yes, companies can price their goods however they like, and people can buy the company's goods however they like. That makes sense. I just think that it ALSO makes sense to tax the higher-ups within these companies proportional to their incomes.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Love it when extremists put words in my mouth. I don't give a crap about him either way.


You repeated the "heart exploding" line of attack for like four posts in a row, dude.  Bold of you to believe you can get away with the Trumpian tactic of "I didn't say what you just heard me say."



Waygeek said:


> The cringe of listening to *extremists*. They have a *label* for fucking everything.


Such a lack of self-awareness borders on parody.  Are you a writer for The Onion?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Regarding beliefs, I elaborated on that point in an edit. You automatically assume that personal beliefs can't be factual, which is a fallacy. By that logic, I can say that your argument of "forcing someone to sell products at prices lower than what it costs you to make them is indentured servitude" is entirely invalid simply because you believe it, even though it may very well be absolutely correct.
> 
> You are correct that price control is totalitarian, I don't advocate for that. My statement was vague so I'll elaborate. I'm not saying we increase the sales tax on products because obviously that can easily lead to companies simply inflating the prices of their goods, but we should be increasing the income taxes on the CEOs and higher-ups in these businesses. This way, even if sales taxes are raised, these people within the companies are taxed proportionally to the wealth they generate.
> 
> So yes, companies can price their goods however they like, and people can buy the company's goods however they like. That makes sense. I just think that it ALSO makes sense to tax the higher-ups within these companies proportional to their incomes.


See, you just removed the problem and put it few step higher up the chain. You didn't resolve it, you just hid it under the carpet. Instead of taxing the company directly, you taxed the CEO, who in turn will simply take out larger dividends/increase their paycheck, which will decrease the company's operating budget, so they will have to increase the profit margin via either a price adjustment or a decrease in quality. The same thing happens, you just made the cause removed from the result by a couple of stages.

I don't know what you mean by "taxing CEO's proportionately", that doesn't mean anything. Proportionate taxation would be a flat tax, everyone regardless of income paying X% of what they make - that's a "fair share". I think you will find that this approach would have the opposite effect to what you intended - as it stands, the top 50% of society accounts for a *staggering* 97% of all income tax revenue. Out of those 50%, the top 1% pays 37.3% of the total, which is *more* than the bottom 90% *combined*. In all factuality, if the bottom 50% of taxpayers just *didn't* pay income tax *at all* and the IRS coasted exclusively on the top 50%'s contributions, tax revenues wouldn't even notice the dent. Food for thought.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

I'm not saying that everything you believe is crazy, what I am saying is that the way you're trying to achieve your goals is destined to fail, and has failed repeatedly, for very predictable reasons. With that said, you're entitled to  believe whatever you want to believe - beliefs are faith-based, not fact-based. Me, I just look at the numbers.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 11, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> See, you just removed the problem and put it few step higher up the chain. You didn't resolve it, you just hid it under the carpet. Instead of taxing the company directly, you taxed the CEO, who in turn will simply take out larger dividends/increase their paycheck, which will decrease the company's operating budget, so they will have to increase the profit margin via either a price adjustment or a decrease in quality. The same thing happens, you just made the cause removed from the result by a couple of stages.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "taxing CEO's proportionately", that doesn't mean anything. Proportionate taxation would be a flat tax, everyone regardless of income paying X% of what they make - that's a "fair share". I think you will find that this approach would have the opposite effect to what you intended - as it stands, the top 50% of society accounts for a *staggering* 97% of all income tax revenue. Out of those 50%, the top 1% pays 37.3% of the total, which is *more* than the bottom 90% *combined*. In all factuality, if the bottom 50% of taxpayers just *didn't* pay income tax *at all* and the IRS coasted exclusively on the top 50%'s contributions, tax revenues wouldn't even notice the dent. Food for thought.
> 
> ...


Right, I meant to say tax based on the wealth they generate, not proportionate. That's my bad.

Also, the study you cited was created by Tax Foundation, which is a conservative think tank so of course, their results are going to be biased. I won't ignore your numbers if you can find me a non-partisan source that can corroborate them, but as it stands, I don't trust them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Right, I meant to say tax based on the wealth they generate, not proportionate. That's my bad.
> 
> Also, the study you cited was created by Tax Foundation, which is a conservative think tank so of course, their results are going to be biased. I won't ignore your numbers if you can find me a non-partisan source that can corroborate them, but as it stands, I don't trust them.


It's an analysis of the official IRS report for 2016, if you want to slog through a wall of text, you can just click the source link - it's right there, in the very first paragraph.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares

"I don't like your source" is a losing argument, a number isn't biased, it either supports or debunks your theory. The wealthy cover the *overwhelming* majority of the income tax revenue because in order for your income tax contribution to be meaningful you need to first have meaningful income. This isn't a big mystery that we've uncovered here.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> You repeated the "heart exploding" line of attack for like four posts in a row, dude.  Bold of you to believe you can get away with the Trumpian tactic of "I didn't say what you just heard me say."



The point is you DIDN'T hear me say it made me happy, because I don't care, extremist, you are reframing so you can virtue signal.

You are an extremist and I'm glad extremists like you are salty.

Look at the propaganda you spread lol

https://gbatemp.net/threads/bernie-...th-his-fox-news-town-hall-performance.536516/



Xzi said:


> Such a lack of self-awareness borders on parody.



Yeah you're clearly not smart enough to follow... my argument is not 'take away all proper nouns'. It's that everything that doesn't fall in line with your extremism gets a cringey nonsensical term from you lot while you're frothing at the mouths.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Look at the propaganda you spread lol
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/bernie-...th-his-fox-news-town-hall-performance.536516/


From my OP there:


Xzi said:


> Feel free to use this thread to discuss your preferred 2020 candidate(s) and debate their policy platforms as well.


If that's the type of rhetoric you consider "extremist," then what exactly qualifies as being moderate in your mind?  When everything is extremism, then nothing is.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 11, 2020)

Xzi said:


> From my OP there:



Literally does not change your propaganda spreading.

And no, your hostile and toxic posting style while reframing the work of other candidates like Warren, while pushing a realistically terrible candidate make you an extremist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 11, 2020)

@Waygeek @Xzi Okay boys, that's enough. You've had your time to get personal, but enough is enough. If you want to prod at each other some more, take it to PM's, or preferably knock it off. You both think you're toxic, we get it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 11, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Literally does not change your propaganda spreading.


Yet another word that you clearly don't understand the meaning of.



Waygeek said:


> And no, your hostile and toxic posting style while reframing the work of other candidates like Warren, while pushing a realistically terrible candidate make you an extremist.


Right, I get it now.  Everybody who likes a candidate that you don't is an extremist.  Everybody who dislikes a candidate that you do like is also an extremist.



Foxi4 said:


> @Waygeek @Xzi Okay boys, that's enough. You've had your time to get personal, but enough is enough. If you want to prod at each other some more, take it to PM's, or preferably knock it off. You both think you're toxic, we get it.


No worries, preaching enlightened centrism is always the fastest way to be put on my ignore list.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2020)

Xzi said:


> No worries, preaching enlightened centrism is always the fastest way to be put on my ignore list.


Don't knock it until you try it, I'll have you know that radical centrism is great!


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Don't knock it until you try it, radical centrism is great!


Meh, I think MLK had it right when he called moderates a bigger impediment to progress than his political enemies.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Meh, I think MLK had it right when he called moderates a bigger impediment to progress than his political enemies.


MLK said a bunch of things that the political left doesn't adhere to today, so you're cherry picking a little bit. That's neither here nor there - the important part is that you can't simultaneously believe "moderates are an impediment to progress" and reject the claim that you're extreme. @Waygeek has a valid point in this regard, and one that you should consider.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> MLK said a bunch of things that the political left doesn't adhere to today, so you're cherry picking a little bit. That's neither here nor there - the important part is that you can't simultaneously believe "moderates are an impediment to progress" and reject the claim that you're extreme. @Waygeek has a valid point in this regard, and one that you should consider.


There is a whole lot of space between moderate and extremist that's easy enough for me to occupy.  From the point of view of tankies and anarkitties, Bernie _was_ the compromise candidate.  Matter of fact, pretty much any candidate would've been the compromise candidate for them since they don't see electoralism as a viable path to progress.  Considering we're now stuck with the choice between Joe "nothing would fundamentally change" Biden and Donald "faster descent into a police state" Trump, I'm starting to see the merits in that argument.  I am neither a communist nor an anarchist, however, and despite my criticisms of her, I would've greatly preferred Warren to Biden as the Democratic candidate.

It's worth noting that you also qualify as an extremist by Waygeek's definition, being a Libertarian Trump supporter and all.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It's an analysis of the official IRS report for 2016, if you want to slog through a wall of text, you can just click the source link - it's right there, in the very first paragraph.
> 
> https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares
> 
> "I don't like your source" is a losing argument, a number isn't biased, it either supports or debunks your theory. The wealthy cover the *overwhelming* majority of the income tax revenue because in order for your income tax contribution to be meaningful you need to first have meaningful income. This isn't a big mystery that we've uncovered here.



The ways numbers are used can be very biased. Climate change deniers manipulate numbers all the time to make it seem like global temperatures aren't rising. 

Now clearly you have more knowledge about economics than I do, and clearly we're approaching (relatively) similar problems from different frameworks. I do still believe my points have a lot of merit, but I don't really know enough about economics to engage in any meaningful debate in that field. 

While I still disagree with several of your points, I understand where you're coming from, and it's enlightening to hear from alternate perspectives.

That being said, I concede because it's clear that I don't have the same level of understanding of economics as you do. Thanks for your time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 12, 2020)

Xzi said:


> There is a whole lot of space between moderate and extremist that's easy enough for me to occupy.  From the point of view of tankies and anarkitties, Bernie _was_ the compromise candidate.  Matter of fact, pretty much any candidate would've been the compromise candidate for them since they don't see electoralism as a viable path to progress.  Considering we're now stuck with the choice between Joe "nothing would fundamentally change" Biden and Donald "faster descent into a police state" Trump, I'm starting to see the merits in that argument.  I am neither a communist nor an anarchist, however, and despite my criticisms of her, I would've greatly preferred Warren to Biden as the Democratic candidate.
> 
> It's worth noting that you also qualify as an extremist by Waygeek's definition, being a Libertarian Trump supporter and all.


@Xzi, say my name. It's "Trumpkin", get it right.  All jokes aside, I support whoever and whatever takes me closer to my goals. Right now that's Trump, tomorrow it might be somebody else. That said, it's been a thrill ride so far, I hope it continues for a while longer.



Seliph said:


> The ways numbers are used can be very biased. Climate change deniers manipulate numbers all the time to make it seem like global temperatures aren't rising.
> 
> Now clearly you have more knowledge about economics than I do, and clearly we're approaching (relatively) similar problems from different frameworks. I do still believe my points have a lot of merit, but I don't really know enough about economics to engage in any meaningful debate in that field.
> 
> ...


Pleasure is all mine, and I apologise if I sounded too harsh at any point - it's just the way I argue. I can see some of the merits of your side as well, however in order to achieve your stated goals I really think your side needs to focus on how to effectively fund them first. "Eat the rich" is not a good way to do it - we're already eating the rich.

One of the reasons why many European countries can afford to have "free" universal healthcare is because a lot of the tax burden is relieved by a value added tax, that's not a thing in the United States. All goods are taxed at 4-20%, which is similar to your state sales tax if it operated on a federal level and was much higher than it is. Food is of course exempt from VAT altogether, as are many other essentials. This is also one of the reasons why Americans are, comparatively speaking, much wealthier than their European counterparts - you're not taxed twice on the same dollar, at least not to the same extent.

If you wanted my prescription on how to propel the US towards prosperity, step one would be to eradicate the income tax altogether, either to the lower 50% of the population who are just not making a meaningful contribution anyway and could use the extra cash, or completely, and replace it with a value added tax on all domestic transactions. That way your taxes scale with your consumption - the rich still pay a lot, the poor pay less since they consume less. Makes for a better society in my opinion, one where productivity isn't penalised and people are taxed per government service rendered, as in order to purchase something, one must use legal tender as provided by the government. I hope that makes sense. Step two would be to scale back the cost of government, but neither the red nor the blue side want to do that, so we'll put that one on the wishlist for now.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 12, 2020)

Genuinely incredible @Xzi wasn't able to heed moderator request and stfu like I did, goes to show what an extremist he is. Cannot help himself. @Foxi4 he's really looking for a thread ban. Probably a 'us politics' thread ban.



Foxi4 said:


> One of the reasons why many European countries can afford to have "free" universal healthcare is because a lot of the tax burden is relieved by a value added tax, that's not a thing in the United States. All goods are taxed at 4-20%, which is similar to your state sales tax if it operated on a federal level and was much higher than it is. Food is of course exempt from VAT altogether, as are many other essentials. This is also one of the reasons why Americans are, comparatively speaking, much wealthier than their European counterparts - you're not taxed twice on the same dollar, at least not to the same extent.



Or it's because we don't have almost twenty aircraft carriers that cost us a million a day to run for some reason. 

The reason you don't have healthcare is your preposterous military industrial complex.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 12, 2020)

To get back at the OP: I'm sad Bernie dropped out. Whether the system was stacked against him or not is something I'll leave to others to discuss.

The way I see it, he certainly had a chance. The whole "radical left" is just an opinion...I haven't heard him utter a single idea that isn't talked about in European countries, if not already implemented. And while it certainly has a following in the USA, I do dare to claim that this support wasn't enough to carry him to the white house. His job now is more important than that: make sure that the ideas take root.

I've got to be honest: before Trump's scandal with the guy, I never heard of Biden. It was more like "Oh, so he was vice president, apparently?". Not to diss his work under Obama, but his foreign press was pretty low.


Not sure why people are saying they might as well give 4 more years to Trump. Fucker can barely get a popularity boost in the country's greatest disaster since world war 2 (the average increase in such a situation is 15-20 percent. He hardly gets 3). Actually winning against Trump is easy. The hard thing is maintaining a proper voting process somehow.


...I won't be replying to toxic remarks, so spare me your opinions on my opinion. I've heard it before.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 12, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> The way I see it, he certainly had a chance. The whole "radical left" is just an opinion...I haven't heard him utter a single idea that isn't talked about in European countries, if not already implemented.



Breaking up banks.

College is not actually free in a lot of European countries.

Nor is medical care fully free in most European countries.



Taleweaver said:


> ...I won't be replying to toxic remarks, so spare me your opinions on my opinion. I've heard it before.
> 
> Last edited by Taleweaver, Today at 12:17 AM



*LOL* this is what happens when you say things that have no basis in reality. If there are no further posts to bury the one that proves your statement wrong, you have to do this to stick your fingers in your ears while you walk away humming.

Being a Belgian and fellow European you should really know better.

At least your beer is on point.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

Foxi4 is lying through his teeth again. Thats just the way I argue, btw.

While VAT is a thing in most european states, sales tax is a thing in most american states.

In Europe its generally higher but its far from non existent in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States



> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe.../2560px-Median_household_income_and_taxes.png



Compare with this:

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

and this

Through an American lens, Western Europe’s middle classes appear smaller
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...estern-europes-middle-classes-appear-smaller/

Also - whats impacting disposable income in Europe as well is f.e. rent pricing. Most people in europe have to rent, because our cities are older, there is less space, our walls are not built of paper (drywall), ... Also a less favorable energy price (oil).

That factors out to about 8% less wealthy because of "lottery of birth":


> Recent research by Charles I. Jones and Peter J. Klenow finds that economic well-being in their sample of Western European countries is similar to that of the U.S. when welfare estimates are broadened to include measures of leisure, mortality and inequality. For example, they estimate that while per capita income in France is only 67% of the level in the U.S., the broader measure of welfare for France is 92% of the level of welfare in the U.S.



edit: Also - income distribution is a thing.
https://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm
--


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> Foxi4 is lying through his teeth again. Thats just the way I argue, btw.
> 
> While VAT is a thing in most european states, sales tax is a thing in most american states.
> 
> ...


That's literally what I said - VAT is the equivalent of the US state sales tax *if* it operated on a federal level. There's obviously a number of other factors that impact overall wealth, this does include the housing market, particularly in areas where the population is dense. I never said that's not the case, what I said was that higher levels of taxation are one of the causes as well. You haven't pointed out anything I've said that wasn't true.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

Lets take south carolina figures for example:

(100/(37000+15000))*15000 = 28% tax burden

Compare it with france:

(100/(41300+31100))*31100 = 43% tax burden

(different currencies (and also multiplied by 14 not 12 (additional salaries), so just compare percentage values)

For that you get universal health care, public universities, public museums, a publicly co-financed art scene, public swimming pools, and no bums on the streets. Also less pot holes. And arguably a better living when you get old, without being able to retire to florida.

Thats for 'middle classes' - if you make more money, you usually pay less taxes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> Lets take south carolina figures for example:
> 
> (100/(37000+15000))*15000 = 28% tax burden
> 
> ...


>France
>No bums on the street

Okay. I won't even touch that one. 

Thank you for illustrating that the tax burden is higher in France than it is in the United States, thus proving my point. I don't know what exactly you're arguing against here. You'll have to clarify for me, I'm genuinely confused.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's literally what I said - VAT is the equivalent of the US state sales tax *if* it operated on a federal level.


As for the if, see graph posted (for lurkers).

You did. I went "what the heck are you selling?!!?" before reading your entire post. 

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



Foxi4 said:


> Thank you for illustrating that the tax burden is higher in France than it is in the United States, thus proving my point. I don't know what exactly you're arguing against here. You'll have to clarify for me, I'm genuinely confused.


Your argument that 'this be because of VAT' taxes is wrong. Your argument, that this leads to people in the us being 'wealthier' is wrong.

Ill get the appropriate graphs shortly - give me a sec.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> As for the if, see graph posted (for lurkers).
> 
> You did. I went "what the heck are you selling?!!?" before reading your entire post.


Well, I'm glad reading my entire post proved enlightening.  States do charge a sales tax on goods, it varies between the states and goes directly to their coffers. My point was that it is not a federal tax akin to VAT, which is a value added tax incurred on, well, added value. The difference is that VAT is based on an increase of value at each stage of production whereas a sales tax is paid at the point of sale.

For lurkers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax

EDIT: I find the idea that a tax burden nearly double the size has no impact on overall wealth to be asinine, but I can see where you're coming from even *before* you post a graph or two. Your argument is that the implemented public services provide an overall saving for the population, which is probably true on the macro scale, particularly in terms of healthcare since the American system is grossly overcharging due to the poor implementation of insurance. My answer to that would be "I don't like American healthcare either", and in addition, I woukd also reiterate that "wealth comes from risk, not from stability - some people win, most people lose". Don't worry, I see the merit in what you're about to say, I simply reject the premise of "greater good", which perhaps makes me a scumbag, but I've come to peace with that classification.

How's my guess? Accurate, or not so much?


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

This is your problem:













src: https://www.compareyourincome.org/ (OECD)

The tool is lousy - so I had to click through for 5 minutes. 

The issue is no re-distribution, not VAT


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> This is your problem:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't necessarily have a problem with that distribution model, the larger the wealthy group the better. Shame about the low income side of the scale, but yes, that's the overall result.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

OK, but then make clear what your position is. 

Dont propagate ("THA FEDERAL STATE IS TAKING YOUR MONEYS AWAY!!11!!1! - Otherwise you would have more of it." No, taking moneys away is part of that re-distribution effort.  ))

Also look very closely to the size of the middle class bars as well.  (Less people in the US in the middle classes as well.)


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> OK, but then make clear what your position is.
> 
> Dont propagate (THA FEDERAL STATE IS TAKING YOUR MONEYS AWAY!!11!!1! ("Otherwise you would have more of it." No, taking moneys away is part of that re-distribution effort.  ))


Oh, but it does - it does take your money away, hand over fist. it's also worth mentioning that in European countries lower segments of society pay almost no tax on their income. In Great Britain the lowest tax bracket is 0% for income up to £12,500. That lower tax burden enables people with low incomes to avoid living in poverty - in the US the lowest tax bracket is 10%. Of course there are also various deductibles, there's SNAP and other programs, but I'm pointing it out because I mentioned that I would like to see the income tax reduced, particularly for low income earners. Y'know, like in the social-democracies of Europe that you guys like so much. 

EDIT: In Germany the lowest tax bracket is 0% for incomes up to €9408, in France it's 0% up to €9964. I see a trend.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

And then you also need this graph:





src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

Then you should have understood the argument fully.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> And then you also need this graph:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand your argument, I disagree when it comes to the causes and the remedies.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Stop saying I'm talking about giving people who are poor "free" money. I have established multiple times that I am not. I am not saying we should be giving people money, and I'm not saying that we should be taking that money from rich people.
> 
> I am saying that we direct the funds of rich people towards services that provide poor people venues for success. By taxing the rich more and stopping needless expenditure (specifically on the military) we direct those funds towards services such as affordable housing, universal health care, equal access education, etc. This provides these services to poor people who otherwise would not have access to them. This very clearly is not "giving people who are poor free money", obviously that is an inane idea. This is simply giving them access to the same services that give white college graduate males from affluent families (which will now be abbreviated as privileged persons) success. This is equal opportunity.
> 
> A person's success should not be dictated by their privilege, but it is. And until we are able to provide everyone with the services that privileged persons have access too, we will never have a truly democratic, meritocratic or egalitarian society.


Actually statistically more females graduate from colleges then males. The idea of only a white man graduating from college in huge numbers isn't accurate.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> EDIT: In Germany the lowest tax bracket is 0% for incomes up to €9408, in France it's 0% up to €9964. I see a trend.


Redistribution.

Both of those are below living wage in both of those countries (rent taking more than half of it). So both of those incomes would most likely be subsidized in some way. You dont take away from people you then have to give something to additionally for them to be able to lead basic existences. (Also they still have to pay VAT, and they pay more of it relative to their income. (Because they have to 'consume' all of it, in segments of the economy where dodging that isnt as easy.))

Thats part of the entire 'no slums, no homeless people on the streets' thing.

In past years their participation in general society still has dropped, because disposable income even in that segment shrunk. So you wont see those people in public swimming pools or theatres anymore. (They still cost money, just less than 'country clubs'.) While in my parents generation, arguably you did.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> Redistribution.
> 
> Both of those are below living wage in both of those countries. So both of those incomes would most likely be subsidized in some way. You dont take away from people you then have to give something to additionally for them to be able to lead basic existences.


I agree, you don't take away from people who don't have much to begin with. That's a good idea, I'm on-board, the US should stop doing that. We're not in disagreement, at least in this regard. See, you wouldn't be half as outraged if you actually read what I've said.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2020)

@Seliph Also most college graduates in stem field in the U.S. comes from foreigners from other countries. Many times a college student complains about understanding their teacher because of their thick accent.

More foreigners receive degrees from american colleges then Americans themselves.

Puts a hole into your only male power theory controlling America. Unless foreigners have more power then white male Americans themselves.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I agree, you don't take away from people who don't have much to begin with. That's a good idea, I'm on-board, the US should stop doing that. We're not in disagreement, at least in this regard. See, you wouldn't be half as outraged if you actually read what I've said.


Next thing to understand is, that most 'available money to tax' exists in the middle classes.
(Distribution you've seen is income, not wealth (as in inherited). Its easier to tax income  )

Existing wealth looks for loopholes more extensively, which is why you usually tend to inflate it away - but currently most western countries have a problem with inflation being too low (risk of recession).


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> Next thing to understand is, that most 'available money to tax' exists in the middle classes.
> (Distribution you've seen is income, not wealth (as in inherited). Its easier to tax income  (wealth looks for loopholes). )


Maybe they look for loopholes because they feel they are being taxed too much?

I know a couple of lower class people that also exploit the tax system to get bigger refunds at the end of the year, which is illegal. They get someone that's good with money and knows the tax system inside out. It's not only a rich exclusive thing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> Next thing to understand is, that most 'available money to tax' exists in the middle classes.
> (Distribution you've seen is income, not wealth (as in inherited). Its easier to tax income  )
> 
> Existing wealth looks for loopholes more extensively, which is why you usually tend to inflate it away - but currently most western countries have a problem with inflation being too low (risk of recession).


Everyone should do whatever they can to pay as little tax as possible and utilise all legal means at their disposal to reduce the amount they're taxed. I'm not looking for additional "available money", I want a reduced tax burden, period - this is where our paths diverge.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Maybe they look for loopholes because they feel they are being taxed to much?


Mostly no. Two concepts.

If you have 'fuck you' money - most of your efforts go into trying to sustain/make more of it, and usually not into philanthropy. People you can hire (money managers) usually will go for the 'easiest gains' - which is always to outmaneuver the large, immobile entity of a FED, because its an easier target to 'cut cost' and thereby raise gains. Usually those guys also are more well paid, than their state equivalents - which means talent mostly should move to the 'prevent taxes' side.

(If that money still gets reinvested into exciting new societal projects and development opportunities - fair, so be it. But in our day and age in general it tends not to, at least not in western societies. (No growth opportunities. (Democraphics..)))

Second concept.

If you don't have f*ck you money, chances are, that you will still optimize for personal gain, and not for societal wellbeing if someone gives you the option.
-

But, you are correct, that there needs to be a base believe in that what your 'redistribution mechanism' (state, politics) does, is not overly corrupt and goes against your own interests. That in the US historically has been much more of a challenge.

(In general it is harder to convince people that have 'everything' and would have to give away larger parts of their wealth of it being better for them, because society around them will become more pleasant. So people that are against redistribution usually are the 'winners' of liberal market economies. Now the only step left is to look up who they are.)


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> Mostly no. Two concepts.
> 
> If you have 'fuck you' money - most of your efforts go into trying to sustain/make more of it, and usually not into philanthropy. People you can hire (money managers) usually will go for the 'easiest gains' - which is always to outmaneuver the large, immobile entity of a FED, because its an easier target to 'cut cost' and thereby raise gains. Usually those guys also are more well paid, than their state equivalents - which means talent mostly should move to the 'prevent taxes' side.
> 
> ...


Isn't that bullying? Make us pleasant. Give me more money or we will bully you for it?


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Isn't that bullying? Make us pleasant. Give me more money or we will bully you for it?


More money?

Also no - taxing is not bullying.

Basic thought model: Markets are not perfect. In fact if not co-regulated (setting up a ruleset, but not micromanaging them) they tend to form monopolies and cartels. Similarly distribution of wealth by market chooses winners and loosers might not be optimal either.

You can choose slightly different outcomes (redistribution of income), if you'd want to - societally. (You vote for it.) Then you use taxes to redistribute. But people have to go with it largely. (You basically want to give them some leeway (personal motivation) - but not make it too easy to dodge taxes.)

Less 'freedom' yes, bullying no. (Similar to the state also has a monopoly of power, when it comes to violence (police, military, ..), so they are 'allowed to' - for the greater good.)


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> no bums on the streets.



Not only is this an impressively ignorant thing to call the homeless, it's inaccurate. Most European states have far too many homeless sleeping rough. 

Foxi4 is still wrong to suggest that 'sales tax' is the difference between free and costly healthcare lmao. In America's case it's its idiotic 'defence' budget.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Not only is this an impressively ignorant thing to call the homeless, it's inaccurate. Most European states have far too many homeless sleeping rough.
> 
> Foxi4 is still wrong to suggest that 'sales tax' is the difference between free and costly healthcare lmao. In America's case it's its idiotic 'defence' budget.


I never suggested that "the sales tax is the difference between costly and affordable healthcare".

As for the defense budget, it has very little to do with American healthcare considering the fact that American healthcare is primarily private, not public. The public components, Medicare and Medicaid, are funded with the payroll tax under FICA, along with Social Security.

If what you intended to say is "the federal government could increase the social safety net funding by decreasing its defense budget", that's probably true, but it's not the root cause. The root cause is the way health insurance is currently set up which necessitates overcharging by healthcare providers so that the small chunk of the price tag covered by the insurer actually pays for the real cost of care. It's a complicated subject that's not simply resolved by decreasing military spending. The whole system is broken and throwing money at it only reduces the symptoms, it doesn't solve the underlying issues.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> As for the defense budget, it has very little to do with American healthcare considering the fact that American healthcare is primarily private, not public.



The argument is that it shouldn't be that way, and what is preventing that is funneling money into the wrong things.

And you certainly do seem to be making that argument, seeing as it was you that brought up VAT in the first place... literally in connection to how we in Europe have a different healthcare system.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> The argument is that it shouldn't be that way, and what is preventing that is funneling money into the wrong things.
> 
> And you certainly do seem to be making that argument, seeing as it was you that brought up VAT in the first place... literally in connection to how we in Europe have a different healthcare system.


What I said was that one reason (out of many) why European countries can fund the public sector, including healthcare, to the extent that they do is the existence of VAT (which is a very specific tax that is different than the state sales tax) which relieves some of the burden from other revenue sources. This in turn allows for allocating more towards those purposes as the overall tax burden on the citizen is higher when used in conjunction with the pre-existing income tax (taxed twice on the same income, effectively). Many countries, like Great Britain, have an additional tax dedicated specifically for the purposes of funding healthcare to further separate that funding mechanism from the rest of the budget.

At no point did I mention the cost of healthcare, I mentioned the funding mechanism. The cost of healthcare has more to do with how that system is ran, not with how it's funded. A $5 band-aid is $5 regardless of whether the Fed spends $1 or $1,000,000,000 on the military, the problem is the $700 "emergency room facility fee" that comes with the band-aid. The cost, and who covers the cost how, are two separate issues. In all factuality, the citizens always cover the cost since the government is only shuffling money from one pile to the other - it doesn't generate any. "Free healthcare" isn't free, you're still paying for it, just via a different funding mechanism.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Not only is this an impressively ignorant thing to call the homeless, it's inaccurate. Most European states have far too many homeless sleeping rough.
> 
> Foxi4 is still wrong to suggest that 'sales tax' is the difference between free and costly healthcare lmao. In America's case it's its idiotic 'defence' budget.


Most?

You have to differentiate between people sleeping rough because of 'lack of other accomodations' or because of psychological problems/free will (as unintuitive as this sounds). Then you also have to differenciate between - is what you are seeing/describing the result of a current crisis - or a 'normal'.

In any of the richer european countries - any person that is still able to retain the ability to fulfill contracts (has the capacity to understand the language, has the ability to sign and stand by contracts they signed, has a bankaccount (easy), has a smartphone/a legal address), usually is covered by social systems to an extend to get their basic living costs covered - if/when hey hit a rough patch. For an unlimited amount of time.

This doesnt mean, that there is living space in abundance, or that everything will be provided by the state - but essentially - everything is there if you show the need. And are able and willing to adhere to a few rules. (You can be punished by the withdrawal of some of those funds, but not below something defined as a minimum level needed to sustain your existance).

This is true for natural citizens of a country only (/people that have lived and worked in a country usually for more than 3 years prior to becoming jobless).

For the population of people still sleeping rough (as well als people that cant get by, because f.e. for them rent is 'comparatively too high') - you have charity (welfare organizations). As an imperfect system (basically as a kind of pressure valve for society)

(And the outcome is the graph posted above. If you've become poor once - in the 'Land of opportunity' you are at an immense risk of your children remaining poor as well. Also this: https://www.theguardian.com/society...homeless-crisis-grows-in-numbers-and-violence )
.
This is no misrepresentation. This is in place. Leading to a much lower rate of people sleeping rough compared with US cities that went through an economic, or housing crisis recently.

Also - please never forget, the US is a wealthy country. So if you are living in a country in europe currently hit by the migration crisis, or similar - please understand that some equivalent form of social care is a legal prerequisite for you being allowed to become part of the EU as a country. So its there. In the US it isnt.


As for the use of the term bum - sorry, that was inconsiderate of me, and entirely my fault. (Lost in translation. Didnt think about the mainly derogative meaning.)


----------



## Flower_Zika (Apr 13, 2020)

Liberals go extinct challenge 2020

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

America doesn't deserve good things. God freaking dammit.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> What I said was that one reason (out of many) why European countries can fund the public sector, including healthcare, to the extent that they do is the existence of VAT (which is a very specific tax that is different than the state sales tax) which relieves some of the burden from other revenue sources.



And yet the US has multiple forms of taxation too. It's not some tax free paradise.



notimp said:


> Most?
> 
> You have to differentiate between people sleeping rough because of 'lack of other accomodations' or because of psychological problems/free will (as unintuitive as this sounds). Then you also have to differenciate between - is what you are seeing/describing the result of a current crisis - or a 'normal'.



I am heavily involved in the homeless sector, I don't need it mansplained to me from someone who doesn't live in the EU.

So yes, most. Some northern european countries are very smart about it and have people indoors in pseudo-temporary accommodation. But most of European states do not. Which is why I said most of us don't have that problem solved adequately.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> I am heavily involved in the homeless sector, I don't need it mansplained to me from someone who doesn't live in the EU.
> 
> So yes, most. Some northern european countries are very smart about it and have people indoors in pseudo-temporary accommodation.


(I'm european, dont go by the flag I used in my account preferences. )
Pseudo temporary accomodation it is. (In some cases, especially for people without families, hopefully not mostly the long term unemployed) Thats the entire point. Allow people to sustain existences as close to the jumping off point of getting into employment again - without falling too far below. (Much higher social costs for recovering from - so society stops caring, and simply writes them off.)

Thats the balance you try to strike,

Also most?

Show me studies, articles, something.  (Basically show me something that states, that european social safety nets have stopped working as intended.)


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> At no point did I mention the cost of healthcare, I mentioned the funding mechanism. The cost of healthcare has more to do with how that system is ran, not with how it's funded. A $5 band-aid is $5 regardless of whether the Fed spends $1 or $1,000,000,000 on the military, the problem is the $700 "emergency room facility fee" that comes with the band-aid.


But that is a quotient of how it is run.

Public health care systems are established to be able to set quotas for 'what a band aid - and a certain consultation of a physician can cost'. Both are not fixed forever, but are evaluated to what makes any economic sense. But for this to work, and not be 'top down enforcement' you need a critical number of people paying into only a small number of  health insurance systems, so they are able to negotiate with the health care industry.

If you do it like in the US, and have 1000 and one health care providers each only focused on getting most money out of their clients, each and every one of those has no chance to go into price negotiations which pharma multis.

And both band aids, and treatment options with a higher than usual demand tend to explode in cost for no reason. (And thats past 'recouping' your investments in research and development, which can be extensive (or not)).

US health care system is past the point where you could fix it 'with more competition'. You need entities that look at prices rationally and start saying - for you (producers) to make any money at all - you need to cut costs in half, because we dont believe you, that you need to be charging, what you tend to charge, for what you are providing. And the only way to get there is to group a significant amount of clients.

Also - emergency care (for free, for people that cant pay) usually is more expensive than routine medical care (for free for everyone). So there is a balance to be struck, certainly not in the favor of how the US does it.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

For anyone wanting to read up between the differences in social safety net models:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...rces/281945-1124119303499/SSNPrimerNote25.pdf

OECD again.



> Alesina and Glaeser (2004) look at the differences between the size of the welfare state (publicly financed education, health and social protection) in the US and the EU, and investigate a wide range of factors that might be associated with the different levels of spending. Surprisingly, their research finds no correlation between economic factors postulated as important by different theories, such as differences in pre-tax inequality; efficiency of the tax system, social mobility, and the propensity to spend on the welfare state. Much of the gap in spending seems to be explained by differences in political institutions (type of political representation, federalism vs. national states, the system of checks and balances), racial fragmentation, or beliefs about the nature of poverty (laziness vs. lack of opportunity).



US citizens simply want to believe people are lazy and politicians are corrupt, regardless of job opportunities in their country, or the economy, or occurring periods of crisis in any of them.

(Talking about real snobism. The kind that allowed them to develop that attitude, uninterrupted, for the better part of seven decades.)

And if you judge it by the education level of the average gbatemp visitor, you know, that they need to stick to very simple believes, or it fries their entire model for existence.

Example?

Bidens voters overwhelmingly were 60 years or older - yet no one is allowed to in the US to discuss issues with age cohorts in mind (social dynamite).

Everything is discussed in a matter of 'are you on the light, or on the dark side - and which is wich, discus', which is entirely idiotic. But try to tell that to people in here, that want to believe, that they are on the right side of history...  I've never seen anything more moronic.



> Population aging in many countries has led to increasing dependency on not only social insurance, but targeted social assistance benefits for the low-income elderly. However, the greatest challenges in terms of aging remain in the future, as OECD populations continue to live longer and birth rates drop.


Its hard to out-patriot this, if you think about it.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 13, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Actually statistically more females graduate from colleges then males. The idea of only a white man graduating from college in huge numbers isn't accurate.


I never said anything to disprove that fact. I simply said that the people in power and the people with money are mostly white men who have graduated from college. This is obvious if you look at the demographics of most millionaires. Only about 18% of millionaires are female.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> But that is a quotient of how it is ran.
> 
> Public health care systems are established to be able to set quotas for 'what a band aid - and a certain consultation of a physician can cost'. Both are not fixed forever, but are evaluated to what makes any economic sense. But for this to work, and not be 'top down enforcement' you need a critical number of people paying into only a small number of  health insurance systems, so they are able to negotiate with the health care industry.
> 
> ...


Doesn't that cause shortages when gov sets prices?

Can they keep up with the changing economy that changes by the week and properly set prices accordingly?

What may be $1.25 dollars of gas one week may be $1.75 then next. It's always fluctuating. Those little cents makes a huge different when hundreds of gallons are bought. Just like getting a 2 dollar raise at work seems small, but it is a $60-80 more in your weekly paycheck. Monthly it's over $200 more

Prices for bandaid change because of the materials used to make them change in price. Plastic, Cotton, Cloth, Rubber all change in price from supply and demand, and how well a specific farm can reduce costs to produce it. Different farms have different methods and some can do it better then others and reduce cost better.

Supply and Demand can change prices based on location. Even between street corners. One corner may have cheaper prices while another corner is a little more expensive for the same exact item. More people shop in one corner then another because it may be an area where more people pass by so it reduces costs. The other corner that doesn't sell as much has to raise prices to make the differnce so they won't lose money.

Another area may have high crime rate so prices are higher to make up the extra money lost to hire security and have extra security systems. And less items on display outside of the store so that people won't steal it, so less is being advertised and sold. And to make up the cost of stolen items. Prices are higher to make up that difference. While a safer area won't have to worry about these costs so prices are lower.

Can people working in gov properly price items depending on different costs to produce an item that every company does differently? Or the properly price depending on supply and demand that varies even on every single street corners? Or properly prices depending on the fluctuating prices that are happening with the many materials that are used to make the items?

Price controls have never worked because a few hundred people that work in gov can't properly do this. No amount of smarts and economics degrees can help someone manage hundreds and thousands of locations and items that changes in prices every week.

While the free market takes the power from a few working in Gov and puts that power in the hands of millions of people that can run their own businesses in a way that fits their specific needs. Individual people only have to worry about one location their own store rather then millions, and knows how prices fluctuate on their own stores because they are buying those items that fluctuate in prices. So they know their own costs to run their store and can properly price items so they won't lose money.

Whether is medical, food, tools. They all suffer from shortages if not handled properly. We have a food shortage at food banks right now to give to people that suffer from covid 19, which always happens because gov can't properly handle this job.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Doesn't that cause shortages when gov sets prices?
> 
> Can they keep up with the changing economy that changes by the week and properly set prices accordingly?


They dont. Prices for services rendered or drugs usually change annually. Unless there is a shortage.

Also government doesnt do it, but a few different (competing) entities that are government affiliated. You could get private insurance to 'top off' on better service.

If there is a shortage - and you are a large buyer of stuff - thats usually also favourable. (Depends on how severe the shortage is.)

The point is, that small health insurance providers have little to no benefits in any of those scenarios. (They can change your premiums more flexibly?  ).

The issue I'm describing is one of pharma companies in the US acting anti competitively, and you needing something to counterbalance that.

Your out is not believing in that being a thing in the first place.  (The US just gets best prices, because theres so much competition in the insurance sector!  )


You are correct, that in any case, where there is a severe shortage (f.e. in expertise in a certain medical field) private health insurance paying more would have a clear advantage. And it has. So in those cases you have to counteract differently, by f.e. funding medical research colleges (/clinics) as a state. (So you basically also own top of the line expertise - for as long as those individuals arent 'established' in their field yet. Also because of networks, later in life they usually also arent just available for private patients exclusively, most often its a mix.)


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2020)

Seliph said:


> I never said anything to disprove that fact. I simply said that the people in power and the people with money are mostly white men who have graduated from college. This is obvious if you look at the demographics of most millionaires. Only about 18% of millionaires are female.


Kinda strange how most who graduate from college aren't Americans themselves.

And most women are gynecologists. Which is a well paid job. Half of women are pharmacists another well paid job. Looking at what group of people dominates what doesn't tell you the whole story.

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



notimp said:


> They dont. Prices for services rendered or drugs usually change annually. Unless there is a shortage.
> 
> Also government doesnt do it, but a few different (competing) entities that are government affiliated. You could get private insurance to 'top off' on better service.
> 
> ...


Funding medical research colleges won't be enough because you need an industry to put that research into practice. To produce those items. Researching alone isn't enough. It needs a private entity to produce those medicines.

People usually blame that because it isn't a fully free market with gov overhead that medicine prices are expensive.


----------



## Seliph (Apr 13, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Kinda strange how most who graduate from college aren't Americans themselves.
> 
> And most women are gynecologists. Which is a well paid job. Half of women are pharmacists another well paid job. Looking at what group of people dominates what doesn't tell you the whole story.



Right but that's irrelevant. I'm looking at the statistics for millionaires. You do realize that gynecologists and pharmacists can also be millionaires, right? And that still, regardless of that fact, only 18% of millionaires are women? I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. Also, not like I don't believe you, but I'd be curious to see where you got your first statistic about college. Taking into account that colleges exist everywhere else in the world, and not just the US, it obviously makes sense that there are more college graduates that aren't American in the world because there are more non-Americans than there are Americans on a global scale.


----------



## notimp (Apr 13, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Funding medical research colleges won't be enough because you need an industry to put that research into practice.


In Europe they are the same thing.

You need sick people to do research, optimally in large quantities. So the better research often comes out of those state funded larger facilities. Young physicians can study there - and research (clinical trials and normal treatments have to be clearly separated (patients have to give consent (and there are ethics boards)). But the people are there, and work there with everyday patients.

And this isnt just a theoretical, it works (for years now). (Take the NHS in britain if you want to look up a model that should be closer to US sensibilities.).


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> And yet the US has multiple forms of taxation too. It's not some tax free paradise.


See: several posts above. The tax burden in Europe is significantly higher than it is in the United States. Naturally it's not a tax free haven, but as a general rule Americans pay less, and as a result receive less in return.


notimp said:


> But that is a quotient of how it is run.
> 
> Public health care systems are established to be able to set quotas for 'what a band aid - and a certain consultation of a physician can cost'. Both are not fixed forever, but are evaluated to what makes any economic sense. But for this to work, and not be 'top down enforcement' you need a critical number of people paying into only a small number of  health insurance systems, so they are able to negotiate with the health care industry.
> 
> ...


You're right, to an extent. The way the system is funded has a degree of influence on how it runs, public systems are less efficient than private ones. This has to do with the problem of the bottomless pot - with a diminished profit motive there is no incentive to be efficient with spending, and with no competition there is no incentive to improve quality while cutting costs. 

I will agree that the US system is well past the point of recovery though, and as I've mentioned earlier, I'm not a fan and I'm not planning to defend it. It's poorly organised, poorly funded and it would be much easier to just scrap the whole thing and go back to the drawing board. That's not due to its universality though, it's simply bad overall. Switzerland for example seems to have no issues whatsoever running a very high-quality private healthcare system, and although it is more expensive than the systems in the UK or other European countries, the life expectancy in Switzerland is leading the pack. The citizens also seem to be more well-off, both financially and in terms of their health, so comparatively speaking it's a win-win in my book.

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

As for price fixing, which is common in countries with universal and publically funded healthcare systems, it's specifically one of the causes of shortages that you mentioned - it's not just up to the drug companies or the market. This issue is ever-present and leads to long wait times, you can observe it in Canada which is pretty much in the same economic environment as the US, but has to ration care, as well as in the UK where the average wait time to be seen in A&E is 4 hours at minimum.

Overall, no system is perfect, and your ultimate goals with designing one is your value judgement on which parameters of it are more important. There is no cure-all in this sector, pun intended. I think I've made my preferences abundantly clear, so I think I'll call it a day with this discussion. We're at a stage where we'd be arguing which dessert is better, cookies or chocolates. In their perfect implementations both private and public systems have their merits in terms of the balance between universality, affordability and quality. Sadly, there are no perfect implementations, and the US one is very far from perfect.

PS: I think I gave off the impression that I'm from the US, judging by the responses in this thread. I'm not - I live in the UK. If I had to choose between going to an NHS hospital and going elsewhere, I'll happily stand in that queue at the vet's, my guts can't possibly be that much different, and at least I'll be seen in my lifetime. I jest, but I avoid the system like the plague.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> (I'm european, dont go by the flag I used in my account preferences. )
> Pseudo temporary accomodation it is. (In some cases, especially for people without families, hopefully not mostly the long term unemployed) Thats the entire point. Allow people to sustain existences as close to the jumping off point of getting into employment again - without falling too far below. (Much higher social costs for recovering from - so society stops caring, and simply writes them off.)
> 
> Thats the balance you try to strike,
> ...



Again, I'm heavily involved in this sector, don't need the mansplaining, you seem to have a platitudinous understanding at best.

No studies are required to show that most European countries are completely dropping the ball in terms of homelessness. Have a quick youtube around for yourself and see. 'Invisible People' is a good channel to start with, mostly american but a decent chuck of English people interviewed too.



Foxi4 said:


> See: several posts above. The tax burden in Europe is significantly higher it is in the United States.



This doesn't strike me as at all true.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 13, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Again, I'm heavily involved in this sector, don't need the mansplaining, you seem to have a platitudinous understanding at best.
> 
> No studies are required to show that most European countries are completely dropping the ball in terms of homelessness. Have a quick youtube around for yourself and see. 'Invisible People' is a good channel to start with, mostly american but a decent chuck of English people interviewed too.


I can atest to this, it's not uncommon to see people in sleeping bags sleeping in various nooks and crannies. The council's solution to people sleeping under the stairs at my local bus depot was to board it up. The idea that homelessness is not an issue in Europe is silly, the same problems can be observed in most metropolitan cities, like London or Paris.


Waygeek said:


> This doesn't strike me as at all true.


And yet, it is, at least overall. With that said, the American tax system isn't geared towards people in the low-end and the country should adapt the same level of taxation of the poor as many European countries - 0%, we've explored that earlier.


----------



## Benja81 (Apr 13, 2020)

Ok let me start out by saying, I am basically a moderate, for lack of a better phrase. I don't subscribe to the 2 party system, its archaic and makes it way to easy for archaic minded people to vote blindly for whoever their party nominates. That being said, the Democratic party is in trouble. In 2016 they nominated Hilary over Bernie, and now they are thinking  Biden is going to beat Trump? I could be wrong, but I think he has ZERO chance to capture more than 40% of the vote or so. I have heard plenty of "Democrats" saying they hate Trump, but still wont vote for Biden. Thats a huge, self-inflicted problem for the Dems, and now we will have two elections in a row where many people wont even have the choice to vote for who they want to vote for (Bernie). Granted Bernie probably wouldn't win either, but I still think a lot of people would vote for him over Biden, so in that sense he'd at least have a better chance.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> And yet, it is, at least overall.



Guess being Irish has given me a false sense of this issue considering our ranking https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally



Benja81 said:


> Ok let me start out by saying, I am basically a moderate, for lack of a better phrase. I don't subscribe to the 2 party system, its archaic



Yup. And worse, it breeds a black and white thinking process in americans.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Again, I'm heavily involved in this sector, don't need the mansplaining, you seem to have a platitudinous understanding at best.


And I dont need patronizing. Being Involved in the sector doesnt count for much in my book. Convince me with arguments, at least try, or dont participate at all.

I dont need someone reputation faking themself to a higher state of not having to interact with folks on grounds of actually having to bring any arguments.

Your feels on the matter, dont matter in a debate. Expert intuition often is wrong.

Btw, hows that entire - don't speak to me differently, because I'm a woman thing treating you in life, as a trump card? Flinging passive aggressive accusations, never being made by anyone in here in the first place.

I never treated you differently than I would anyone else in here, because you were female. But you wanted to feel exceptional in that sense?

You are the worst.

"You cant be correct, because I intuitively know its different." "You cant be correct, because you arent european." "You cant be correct, because you are mansplaining". You are definitely wrong on three accounts already - want wo make it four?


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> And I dont need patronizing.



What do you think mansplaining is? It's literally patronizing. No one is patronizing here but you.



notimp said:


> Btw, hows that entire - don't speak to me differently, because I'm a woman thing treating you in life, as a trump card?



Did I say I was a woman?



notimp said:


> Being Involved in the sector doesnt count for much in my book.




Literally no one cares.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2020)

Thank you for your input.

(What I'm dealing with in this case is a guy (?) that has internalized loaded language of the feminist movement. Is now accusing other guys of 'man-splaining' things to him, when he doesnt like them. Still is of the opinion that he doesnt need arguments, because of all the knowledge he picked up through osmosis, working in the field, whose first reaction was to hone in on the derogative use of the word bum (I'm at fault for that and sorry), that then extended the argument to 'you cant be right - because you are born in the wrong country', that then upon asking him twice still doesnt fully make/form his argument (you also must work with homeless people I guess - to understand), that still wants to remain ambivilant about what his gender is, just for good measure, that has now switched to - no one cares about you, but about me and the argument I'm obviously not making.

Thats some next level trolling.  Kudos.)


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> when he doesnt like them.



Funny way to type 'when they have absolutely no basis in easily perceptible reality'.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2020)

Everyone - that homeless people are camping on streets (or parks?), in considerable numbers, in _most_ european countries is "easily perceptible reality" according to this guy.

Because everyone flies through europe, and takes surveys on that.

Also according to that guy, it is easily perceptible, that this is a result of social safety net systems failing structurally in most european countries, because - I mean, just look at it...

This is not how arguing works.

You give me any metrics (I've read about a 70% increase in homeless populations in europe, as a result of several national economic crises, housing crisis and migration crisis mixed in. Which still has not resulted in people having to sleep rough on a structural basis (basically "forced to, for a prolonged period of time"), as far as I'm informed.), and I deal with your argument. (I'm willing to learn.)

edit: We can start there:
https://www.eurozine.com/the-war-on-rough-sleeping/


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> Everyone - that homeless people are camping on streets (or parks?), in considerable numbers, in _most_ european countries is "easily perceptible reality" according to this guy.
> 
> Because everyone flies through europe, and takes surveys on that.



It's easily perceptible to anyone in Europe. It's not the business of anyone outside of Europe to be commenting as if they're an authority. They're not. You don't see me or fox commenting on homelessness in Laos. Because we don't know. So we keep our mouths closed on that. 

This is a skill you sorely lack.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2020)

For the second time, I'm a european citizen.

Then we can talk about the european comissions position on the issue as per a working paper from 2014:



> Our main presumption is that destitution and homelessness are the result of both how society – politically, socially and economically – operates, and the very existence of formal legal structures which may include and exclude migrant groups. The social causes are dealt with in chapter 4. For the purpose of our analysis these social causes are divided into three ‘pillars’: the labour market, social security and the housing market. These pillars are considered to be the main sources of individual wellbeing and social safety. Our central line of reasoning is that at different levels migrants may be confronted with all kinds of obstacles preventing them from gaining full access to the goods and services provided by these pillars. We examine the obstacles that may confront migrants first at the structural level, where the amount and quality of the provisions and services are considered. We then look at the role of institutional mechanisms, particularly with regard to discriminatory and unfair practices. Finally we examine the individual level of the migrants involved, including the different aspects of human capital. This study of the social causes is based upon a critical evaluation of secondary literature. We address the legal causes in chapter 5. Depending on their specific status, migrant groups might be formally excluded from access to the labour market, social security services and the housing market in the host country. As will be explained, the deficit in legal protection for migrants does not only exist under national law but also under international and European law. Despite the efforts of the international community of states to improve the social protection of migrants, there are still inadequacies to be identified. This also applies for the EU. We will show that some of the legal causes of destitution and homelessness among migrants can be traced back directly to weaknesses in European protective regulatory standards. In addition to EU law, attention has been paid to the impact of Council of Europe human rights treaties on the position of immigrants. These treaties are proving to be of increasing importance for marginalised individual migrants and groups. This legal analyses is based upon a systematic study of legal sources, such as the EU Treaties, secondary legislation and case law of ECJ, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Social Rights Committee.


src: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d5bfc21c-eac6-4acc-9d0e-e4d6b7c488cf

(Longform for - we believe (in 2014) its mostly a copruduct of migration. (Again - we are talking about an increase of about 70% in recent years.))



> Challenges for the EU include:
> 
> 
> Homelessness levels have risen recently in most parts of Europe. The crisis seems to have aggravated the situation.
> ...





> Policy response
> 
> EU Member States have primary responsibility and competence to address homelessness. The EU's Social Investment Packageencourages them to:
> 
> ...


Again, for all I know you are another Trump drone, badmouthing social security systems in europe.

Bring other arguments than 'I've seen 'em!' (thats anecdotal).

edit: See also:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0042

(I'm reading that currently.)

edit:



> In the past, homelessness was a short-lived experience for many people, especially those who, apart from their need for housing required little additional support. But the crisis is exposing more people to longer periods of homelessness. Deepening poverty and a sharp increase in unemployment have increased the general risk for homelessness. Budgetary consolidations have diminished the capacity of the welfare state to alleviate and prevent homelessness. Rising housing costs and prices combined with uncertain financial markets have increased the vulnerability of homeowners in a number of Member States. Mortgage or rent arrears plus high energy and utility bills have taken many people into financial trouble.





> According to an expert estimate for the year 2009, under categories 1 and 2 of the ETHOS definition - that is, when counting with the most vulnerable roofless and houseless people [23]- there could be as many as 410.000 homeless people on any given night in the European Union. This could imply that about 4.1 million people in the EU are exposed to rooflessness and houselessness each year for a shorter or longer period.[24]



That 410.000 number roughly comes out to 1 in 1000, which is still higher than expected.

edit:


> The ‘traditional core’ of the homeless population is largely made up of middle-aged men with long-standing social problems, mental health issues and/or alcohol and drug addiction,[33] who usually require very complex and intensive support. But as of the late 1990s and increasingly since the onset of the crisis, the composition of the homeless population has begun to change.[34] Strongly influenced by the recession, the risk of homelessness has increased in particular among citizens from other EU Member States, migrants from third countries, young persons, the newly unemployed, victims of legal loan sharking and those who generally have a low income.
> 
> Women, single-parent and large families, older people, Roma and other minorities are also more exposed to homelessness. As is some parts of the rural population even if homelessness remains a predominantly urban phenomenon. The lower educated seem to be overrepresented among the homeless. A Commission study found that some 70 % of the homeless young had left school with no more than lower secondary education.[35]
> 
> The on-going inflow of migrants is an important driver of homelessness, particularly in urban areas. Migrants from within the EU are severely affected by the crisis. They are hit by massive layoffs and wage cuts and often lack a supportive social network. In particular, the employment rate in low skilled sectors such as construction and manufacturing, where many migrants used to work, was reduced by the crisis.



Identified as main causes:


> Although migration policies vary across Member States, access of migrants without a residency status to emergency social care such as shelters, social benefits, housing, healthcare, education and labour market integration services is usually restricted everywhere. Undocumented migrants typically do not have access to the most basic services. Asylum seekers are only granted temporary protection in their first EU country of entry, resulting in a limited duration of any entitlements.[36] EU citizens who are mobile across the EU are usually in a better position than third-country nationals but they also do not have the same social security rights as nationals.[37]





> People leaving institutions such as prisons, hospitals, mental health institutions and alternative foster care homes can be particularly vulnerable to homelessness[41] without adequate preparation for their after-care life and sufficient follow-up support e.g. to help them find housing. Many deinstitutionalised people do not have a family home to return to, have lost their own home during their care stay or cannot find suitable new housing. The homelessness risk for young people leaving care is greater also because they are often forced to become self-sufficient at a much younger age than their peers growing up in a family home. Incarceration can have a long-term exclusionary effect but stigmatisation is very common among institution-leavers in general.



Families get shortlisted for social housing:


> Among the homeless more and more families with children are being seen,[42] even if they usually manage to stay in temporary or insecure accommodation rather than being exposed to rough sleeping.[43] Roma children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, undocumented or non-registered children and children leaving care are especially at risk. Spells of rough sleeping have been reported for children under the age of 12.[44]



And also sadly:


> Life cycle transitions during adolescence, like leaving education, the parental home or a care institution for work or early parenthood may also increase the risk of homelessness. Youth homelessness has risen as a result of the high youth unemployment due to the crisis and early school-leaving. Many youngsters find themselves also in precarious jobs, on a temporary or part-time contract of employment without much access to social support.[45] A problematic harmful family background caused for example by sexual or physical abuse during childhood, loss of a parent and additional lack of a supporting network can also trigger youth homelessness.[46] A significant number of low-income families are struggling to support their children, especially during teenage years, at school.[47]



This I was familiar with already:


> A considerable and growing number of older (over 50s) persons have been homeless or exposed to housing exclusion for at least a year.[48] Divorce, death of spouse and an inadequate pension are the major trigger factors. The growing lack of carers in ageing societies may also increase the vulnerability of older people to housing exclusion. Older people who depend on affordable home care and who are left struggling are exposed to homelessness.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Homelessness is generally triggered by a ‘complex interplay of structural, institutional, relationship and personal factors’.[52] The table below[53] shows that homelessness is usually due to an accumulation of vulnerability factors and not the result of a single trigger or cause. For example, unemployment and financial hardship or substance abuse – primary triggers of homelessness themselves – may put pressure on personal relationships, increasing the risk of family breakdown, which is another important trigger of homelessness.[54]


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> For the second time, I'm a european citizen.



If that were true you wouldn't be depending on random surveys, you would have first hand experience, even if it was just walking by. You'd also know stats produced by Europe rarely tell the whole story, for a multitude of reasons. Most importantly, because they trust representatives of each state to illustrate the whole story properly. That's a problem, when all the politicians in said state are fucking morons who were born with silver spoons in their mouths.

Seriously genius, spend a few hours on youtube. Start with that channel I recommended. Maybe some of the bigger Irish and English newspapers, searching for articles on homelessness. You'll learn a lot. Because right now you know nothing.



notimp said:


> Again, for all I know you are another Trump drone, badmouthing social security systems in europe.



Yawn. Someone said something about an ignore function?


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2020)

You are a troll.


> If that were true you wouldn't be depending on random surveys, you would have first hand experience, even if it was just walking by.



In your (stated) occupational field you need surveys for basically everything. Starting with  'to get funds'. The main issue is, that its hard to do those extensively, because the homeless population usually isnt overly eager to participate.

If you are now denigrating surveys ('you dont need some random surveys'), I know what I'm dealing with.

Also, there are enough contextual clues in the first three topics on this forum to prove that I'm european - but that discussion really is just a strawman.

Get lost you troll.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> The main issue is, that its hard to do those extensively, because the homeless population usually isnt overly eager to participate.



Literal bullshit from a troll, based on fantasy. 'The homeless population' are very, very keen on interfacing with numerous charities for any help possible, and these charities keep numbers, you also need to be registered with the government/council for any help. They also consider it important to talk to the media because their plight is not accurately represented in the media or society. These charities, and the government, just don't care about certain demographics of homeless (hidden homeless specifically). Then, they fudge numbers with people who are not technically sleeping rough, but really should be, they're in homeless hostels that are that dangerous. Lost count of the amount of conversations with lads telling me they had to replace phones/bags and clothing today etc.

Ignorant Laos troll who won't do his homework properly. Deliberately won't do some reading of newspapers because his English is not great and because he knows he's wrong.

https://www.thejournal.ie/homeless-figures-7-4613271-Apr2019/

You are wrong, there are altogether too many rough sleeping and not safe homeless people on European streets, it's been getting worse for a while with housing crises in places like Ireland and Eastern Europe, and with another recession looming, it's about to get a lot worse. You're wrong. Get over it troll.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2020)

So you are working for a charity that doesnt have to do surveys, because you distribute your own funds. Fair.

That governments arent especially eager to care about 'hidden homeless' is something I can believe.

Reading newspapers is about a third of what I do every day - and my english is at CEFR C1 level, maybe even C2 nowadays. My use of the word bum was a rush and inconsiderate momentary laps in decision making. And for the third time, it was wrong.

If you could come down from your high horse of 'i have to prove nothing' you would have seen, that I already posted sources that state that every night 1 in 1000 people in the EU sleeps rough, which strengthens your position.

But instead of picking up on that - you decided to exchange interpersonal niceties for a little while longer.

Now to the initial discussion - the homeless population in LA roughly factors out to 1-1.5 percent, which is ten times higher than the EU average. That said, in the city I live in the percentage of people having to turn to whats called emergency shelter is 0.07% (one in 1500) and shelter for them is provided. For a number 8 times higher than that regular housing accommodation is provided. Which comes out to 0.56% of overall population.

Those are figures from the red cross in my country. Those are also probably, why I dont usually see homeless people sleeping in the streets. (Maybe thats also partly social blinders I'm putting on, when walking through town, I dont know.) Last year no homeless person died in winter in my city.

Which means, that social security nets havent structurally failed, at least in my home town, as far as I'm concerned.

But then I dont walk through the entirety of europe every evening, so I might still be wrong extrapolating the situation in "most european countries" from that.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> So you are working for a charity



Who said this?

Is everything that comes out of your mouth assumptions based on severely incomplete pictures?




notimp said:


> and my english is at CEFR C1 level, maybe even C2 nowadays.



It's not, I can make you for a non-native speaker immediately. 

How can someone who is living through the covid19 pandemic still not understand that reported numbers are not the full picture and that agencies fudge numbers to look better is completely, completely beyond me. Go away troll. You're wasting my time.


----------



## notimp (Apr 14, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Is everything that comes out of your mouth assumptions based on severely incomplete pictures?


If you provide no, or extremely sparse information - yes.


Waygeek said:


> It's not, I can make you for a non-native speaker immediately.


Well tests I've undergone say its C1. So they must be at fault then.

Bravado, bravado, bravado - thats all you are delivering. Still. And we are about ten postings into our little exchange.

But please indulge me, what part of the picture am I still missing. (That the red cross in my country doesnt interact with 'hidden homeless' populations? Or that it interacts with them, but the fudges the numbers, which is the point where you come in and save the day?)

I hate Mother Theresa types, btw - with a passion. (Also has to do with misrepresenting their importance. Or getting off on god complexes, I never can quite decide...)


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 15, 2020)

Settle down, boys - you've argued long enough, and strayed quite far from the original subject. Hit the breaks on the personal attacks.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 15, 2020)

notimp said:


> But please indulge me, what part of the picture am I still missing.



On the ground personal experience. You have already had two Europeans tell you you're wrong. Only your arrogance is preventing you from listening to this, the need to believe you know better than others. 



notimp said:


> I hate Mother Theresa types, btw - with a passion.



You mean corrupt thieves who have more than enough donations to help people but choose to keep them in poverty? 



notimp said:


> (Also has to do with misrepresenting their importance. Or getting off on god complexes, I never can quite decide...)



Deeply, deeply ironic here. 



Foxi4 said:


> Settle down, boys - you've argued long enough, and strayed quite far from the original subject. Hit the breaks on the personal attacks.



Yessir.


----------



## notimp (Apr 16, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Deeply, deeply ironic here.


I said, teach me something new. I said, explain to me in more detail why you know. I said, at least give me a clearer picture, of what you do.

You said: I am god.

I work with poor and people in need. They all like me. They all want to talk to me, because I can give them stuff. Its all a conspiracy - the numbers arent right. I dont need flipping studies - everyone in europe sees it. Even when they are just walking around. If you don't, you cant live in europe. Convince me that you live in europe now, so I even listen to your opinion. Dont you read the news?! The red cross is lying - the poor people love me. And they all need me.

Other than that - you were deflecting, mirroring (no you have god complex), not opening up any surface for me to get any clearer picture of what you meant (apart from 'the hidden homelessness' - which you could have picked from a rap lyric the way you were presenting it - entirely without context). Currently its even unclear what gender you are (even though you used feminist attack lingo), or what your work expirience is (let me guess one more time, you volunteer?) - but everyone should listen to your feelings, because you "work in the field", which you put front and center of the argument - as if that statement would mean anything. Twice.

Then you tried to personally attack people that didnt agree with your personal brand of believe - until they left.

Then you had to get the last word in.

Let me guess, you are one of those children that never could do anything wrong, when growing up? Because your parents felt bad for having to neglect you so much, because of work? Total freedom to do anything you wanted. Then it didnt work out for you the way you wanted - but you needed the constant affirmation, which is why you went into caring for the homeless. Oh and btw. on this I'm hoping that I'm wrong.

*bicker* 

edit:

And you managed to do all of that in a field of discussion, where you have the majority of public opinion on your side already. Which is why you stopped this thread dead. No one wants to argue against you, sh*t - they'd look horrible on facebook...

So thats what you did for you whole life. You created a feedback loop of 'I am better', and 'there is a big conspiracy - systems are not working, which means, I'm even needed that much more'. And to everyone that asked why you said - you just are in the know. And if they then pulled statistics, you started with feminist attack lingo, even though you were a man, because you learned you could kill discussion that way - very easily. (And thats what I call a god complex. You are needed. You can do no wrong. Its obvious. (Poor people are even very eager to talk to you to get help, its not hard at all to get surveys in that field. (But it is.)))

But why didn't that work this time around...

Oh, and at the moderater, by having this stay around for a while - we can give it visibility. Maybe dont try to cut off the discussion at this point - because with the constant parade of personal attacks, that was what the other person wanted.

Homelessness is an important topic in its own right, and we already had a seperate 'Sanders lost the nominee thread'. Lets allow for this thread to explore the issue of homelesness a little better.

We have a pro in here - let them explain it better.

I argued why the homelessness issue is not 'structural failure' of european social safety nets. Lets hear the other side of that story.



Oh, and and one more thing - if there is no response to this at all - judge them harshly.

Because there was enough energy here to get the last word in to demean, a person one more time, but not to explain a central issue - that should have cost that person almost no time and effort, because they already were self proclaimed experts and should have had those arguments at hand.


----------



## notimp (Apr 16, 2020)

Oh, and if the moderator doesnt want to follow my recommendation to keep this thread open for that purpose, no problem - I can bring it back in.

What that person just demonstrated was exactly whats wrong with the american social care system (based on charity and NGOs exclusively (voluntary help)).

I've read too many obituaries in the backsection of the econmist in my time - that spoke of the unique spirtit of that billionaire, that lay with the cripple in the same bed, because he had this unique and aspirable disposition, that allowed him to bask in the suffering of others and made him able to create this 'human connection' bond with them, that was so needed for them and that allowed them to persist in the really tough situations that they were thrown into.

And while this is right for some cases, the number should be as small and confined as possible - because what those people in their 'charity' do - is to elongate more structural issues, to keep that circle of suffering and being attended up. Just so they can get their dopamine fixes of feeling needed fundamentally.

Now - that doesnt mean dont help people in need (this concept:





(src: Master Keaton Vol 3 Chapter 25 - read it if it appeals to you, its not bad.))

But it means, that you ask them very distinctly, what they are optimizing for. What their goals are.

And if that turns out to be - no, no you need more people that see this as a problem - but more using the empathic route, by just seeing, and experiencing. And then you end up with accusing people that dont see in it a need for additional charitywork, of wrongdoing, because structurally social safety nets that dont rely on charity ARE preferable, if they work.

And then you say - that you don't need surveys in your field - because just seeing such cases in the streets is believing, take my life advice -

you all pick up your feet, and you run. In the opposite direction. As fast and as far as possible. Away from that person. If you can.

And thats the difference between the US and the EU approach on trying to solve this issue. In the US its not 'socialism', its charity - if anything. And as a result you keep poor populations poor, and uneducated populations uneducated. But the excellency in all this - you dont mind.

Doesnt mean, that I lack empathy. I just don't get off on suffering. And therefore have to look away at some point. And that point is not at 'solving this structurally'.

I'm interested to learn if I do it at the wrong point (If stuff has changed) - I'm not interested in people that tell me, no - you dont look away, on purpose. You fill the need. Always. Because it gives you so much more.

If you need god in your life - may I recommend a church.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 16, 2020)

Wall of text when you've been told to stop by a mod. Classy.

Yeah, you have mental health issues, I can see that now. Narcissistic personality disorder at the very least. 

I don't really consider poking mentally ill people 'fun', so welcome to my ignore list. Hope you get the help you need.


----------



## chrisrlink (Apr 16, 2020)

this is getting ridiculous some mod please close this toxic cestpool


----------



## notimp (Apr 16, 2020)

Toxic is not an argument. In no discussion ever.

Narcistic personality disorder is not an argument to bring, when someone is literally trying to prove they are not a bad person. For the position they are holding.

You have mental issues! Is something I never used as an argument against anyone in here ever. On purpose.

Closing this thread is the worst thing a moderator could do at this point. (Especially if I had mental issues.)

Just leave it open, and let the responses stand for themselves.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 16, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> this is getting ridiculous some mod please close this toxic cestpool



Agreed tbh.


----------



## notimp (Apr 16, 2020)

But thats winning for you...

Just on a baseline. You accused me of showing and having no empathy.

Because I could see all the poor people around me having to sleep rough in europe if I just looked.

And that politically something had to change, because the social safety system in most of Europe was broken to the point, where the homeless problem got out of hand. (You'd see people sleeping rough in most of Europe, if you just would walk through the streets and look.)

But then you didn't think, that surveys could help, because charities and NGOs could count - and it was governments, that clearly would produce fake numbers, and dont give charities the help thats needed.

Then I tried to argue, that I think structural assistance is a better way to resolve the underlying issue, even if that meant just base level monetary aid for most people, education and reintegration measures, but not reaching a point, where you give out help, by handing out physical products ("they all are very glad for what we give them" (US american model)), because that increases dependency structures that are harder to get away from.

I then also noted, that for some segment of people, at some points in their lives, you'd even need that - but that it should be kept small at all costs.

("I really hate Mother Theresa types" - made more tangible, by me even resorting to artistic means (comic illustration above).)

I did that to illustrate that an instinct that doesnt help people directly at first (maybe even saying 'go away' - first) doesnt have to come out of a sense of "lack of empathy". And hopefully doesnt - in my case.

Hence - hopefully I'm not suffering from a narcistic disorder.

At the same time, I baited you into disregarding much of what you supposedly stood for. You called people mentally ill to win an argument, you called surveys unneeded for your work, you still blamed most on a general lack of empathy.

Thats what arguing can do.

And thats why you also try not to win arguments ad hominem, or try to deplattform people (this is toxic, and has to be closed) - but hopefully bring arguments (statistics, surveys, even news articles) instead.

But its not my job to surface them for your side of the argument. Let me learn something new, by not requiring - prima facie - that I just believe you outright, because you are the expert (working in the field).

(Even if not that good at english, I'm good at arguing.  Hopefully that was not the narcissist in me talking.  )


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 16, 2020)

If anyone has every wondered why psychiatrists are payed six figures, this is why. 

It's us chumps who are reading this lunatic drivel for free...


----------



## notimp (Apr 16, 2020)

... says the empathic person that attends to homeless people for living and should be sensitive to psychiatric disorders. But sometimes just wants to win in an argument for no reason at all.

See - we could do this all day.

So lets stop. (Thats me stoping. Last thing I'll post in here..  )

edit: This btw was the economist obituary I was referring to: https://www.economist.com/obituary/2019/05/16/obituary-jean-vanier-died-on-may-7th Turns out he was a philosophy professor (financed by the french government in his philanthropic efforts) and not an industry mogul. Please forgive me that laps, as its usually the second group that gets an obituary in that paper. Nevertheless, he taught me something about myself, namely that empathy has its limits as well. I could never be that guy.

Also he was deeply religious. At least I remembered that part correctly.

So what you use to find out who's in need, and how you attend to those needs is not as set in stone - as the goodhearted person that works with the homeless believed and insisted on not only being morally, but absolutely right.

(Before all of a sudden screaming about insanity, dribble, and that this thread had to be closed.)


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 16, 2020)

Thank god this lunatic is done pontificating. Got boring days ago.


----------



## notimp (Apr 17, 2020)

Broken record.

Abusive personality jobbing as a homeless helper for the "social" reputation.

Also you did all of this for entertainment? (Boring!1 Is your takeaway from this?)


Lets face it, you would only be satisfied, if I vanished from the earth at this point.

Responded only so doubling down on the reframing to 'insane dribble' was not possible. Too easy. Next pushback would have to be more substantive.


edit: Btw. just for the record, I'm not against closing this thread at this point.  Or after their next response.


edit2: If you should still be interested:

Ethical arguing against charity:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/against_1.shtml

Also with parables in it. ("Story of the boy and the starfish." would be in your favor.)

If you'd want to mail the editor your 'insane dribble' standpoint, I think they usually get those by the bag.

And I'm not even against charity, I mainly insisted, that if other forms of social welfare are available (state solving parts of it), those are preferable. And I argued, that social safety nets are not substantially broken in the majority of europe. (Even though we are experiencing multiple crises currently. (Housing market crisis, ..))

Basically my stance is this:


> ...large-scale philanthropic activity carries with it serious risks of changing the balance of funding from the public to the private sector, thereby exposing those most in need to the vicissitudes of the market. To the extent that private funding of essential services becomes the norm, the vulnerable become the recipients of (at best) uncertain aid, which is liable to fluctuations and constant reduction.



You'd also find the principal that private large donor philanthropy is problematic argued in the article. Again, even more harshly than I did.

I mearly said, that I couldnt be the guy that showed an open heart for every individual case of suffering he came across, and that there are limits to empathy. (I also insisted, that they did it for their own personal payback (dopamine) - even if in the end, what they do (even in the extreme (economist article)) is obviously not wrong societally. Its needed. But it isnt altruistic in my mind. (People do it to get emotional or reputation rewards.)) And its only needed if other avenues to address the issue arent sufficient. Which they never are - so point in your favor.

And then I also argued, that people should ask, if 'help' comes in the form of 'only easing suffering' in which case, they should run in the opposite direction as fast as they possibly can. If they are still able to. (This I think was what offended you most, but I could be wrong. The comic snippet was my way of trying to illustrate that (dependency should be avoided as an outcome, there is not a lack of empathy at play), although far from perfectly - judging by the fallout.)


----------



## notimp (Apr 17, 2020)

Who holds those positions?

Neil Levy research fellow in Oxford in empirical approaches to ethics and social issues
https://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/people/professor-neil-levy

(And to a lesser extend (more radical) John Atkinson Hobson, seminal english economist and social scientist at a time those systems were developed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._A._Hobson )


And you did what? Take your first chance to look at a page from a comic book, used as an illustration - and started to first tentatively insisting, that I was narcistic - and later, that everything - and I mean everything you ignored for the entirety of the discussion, was insanity. Then you doubled down on that.


The last time something like that happened in here, I used a movie as a concept to illustrate capital media driven by state press relations, and people in here started to accuse me of wanting to be a fictional character at the turn of the century.

Ok - I see my fault here, I used a comic to illustrate a concept. Like we do with xkcd all the time. But that was enough to let hell break loose, because it was a comic?

Or was I that brash and unclear in pointing out what I meant?

Well thank god for second chances.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 17, 2020)

@notimp, you're melting down. Take a good look at what you're posting. @Waygeek already took a step back from the argument and agreed to drop it, meanwhile you keep on prodding. One more outburst and I'll have to penalise you, and I don't like doing that. You two can just agree to disagree and move on, it's not about winning, it's about exchanging ideas. If you can't take the heat, you'll get kicked out of the kitchen - final warning.


----------



## notimp (Apr 17, 2020)

I'm not dropping the argument, that charity is less preferable than a working state run social system.


Also from what else should I take a step back? From melting down?

From my computer?

From referencing philosophy and social studies? Sigh.

That intervention helped...


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 17, 2020)

notimp said:


> I'm not dropping the argument, that charity is less preferable than a working state run social system.
> 
> 
> Also from what else should I take a step back? From melting down?
> ...


This is a thread about Bernie's campaign. Unless you have something to say about that, you can take a break now.


----------



## notimp (Apr 17, 2020)

Sanders approach on preferring a more social concept on societal safety nets is structurally correct, if you want societies that dont rely on charitywork - if anything at all goes wrong.

(Like checks in the mail your president insists on printing his name on.)

Charitywork in itself leads to a higher propensity of people being stuck in detrimental positions for longer (higher propensity of generational poverty in the US - optimizes to combat symptoms, not causes).


Insisting that more charitywork and 'emotional attentiveness' (empathy) is needed to better a failing social safety system in the european union (which by most accounts isnt structurally failing), is wrong.

Most of this is argued philosophically, but studies seem to indicate as much, when comparing the US with the EU.

Sanders wants a concept of society thats more like those of european states.

Sorry I dind't manage to get this across without signaling mental breakdown to you. But I wanted to get away from the personal accusations, and wasnt in the best state of mind, after none of the actual arguments where even considered for several pages of the exchange.

Thank you for letting me state this and not shutting down the thread earlier.

(edit: Oh, and the checks from the government example is wrong as well, because thats state spending. Great.  )


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 17, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sorry I dind't manage to get this across without signaling mental breakdown to you.


Ain't that the truth, buddy.


----------



## notimp (Apr 17, 2020)

Good. Picked myself up again. (Wasnt so fun either hearing the 'insane babble' line twice.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 17, 2020)

So let me get this straight

DNC
2016. By a quirk of the rules, that you know and play to, you gain majority support but lose the overall contest. Also lose control of a branch (though gain it back later)
Fair enough. Lick your wounds, prepare for round 2. Not the worst starting position for a political party by any means. Your party has diverged over the decades but even the crazy wing of your party is not likely to stay home or shoot themselves in the foot leaving you free to go for the swing votes.
Apparently one of the reasons for the loss was your chosen candidate was disagreeable and the other guy... even his most ardent supporters mostly went with "he is my president now so I will see what happens, don't care what happened before", and you know you can show him saying and doing some utter bollocks without even provoking him (which you can also do safely and predictably enough). I am still not sure how the candidate was so disagreeable (she seemed like a boring bog standard politico) but that matters little as it is what it is and you can use that, assuming you can figure out why that might be which should not be too hard as everybody seems ready to share opinions these days.
Your job in this case is to note and/or highlight the failures of the administration (not hard) and find in your little book of senators, representatives, possibly high ranking judges, governors and maybe mayors of big cities a candidate under say 50 that will serve as bog standard politico unlikely to offend anybody, and possibly even be broadly agreeable to those in the states you lost or could plausibly win (most of your people under 50 probably have a nice computerised list of all they have said and voted for which makes this even easier).

Nobody outside of the state they do things in/for has ever heard of any candidate before so that is OK. Boost said candidate(s) on the national, and possibly international stage. Make them a quasi ambassador for some kind of purpose or project.

Instead you screech, act like morons on several occasions, depart in many cases from ideals of your country, elevate the crazy wing of your party (or at least fail to contain them or show them as fools yourself), call for utter nonsense, frequently stymie any progress on agreeable policy to do said nonsense, tell stupid tales that anybody with a camera can disprove, flub an investigation/"prosecution" that any law student given a night to study is likely to say would be a tricky ask even under favourable conditions (which you do not have), screech some more, generally act like fools and finally select a senile old duffer, with his closest apparent competition being someone that is unlikely to gain either those swing votes or see turnout high enough to matter?

And they wonder why people say politicians could not organise a piss up in a brewery. If I were more cynical I would note that third parties are often funded in secret by the opposite political party to them so as to spoiler effect their opponents, here though I wonder if they were not outright infiltrated.

If Biden is basically assumed to drop dead at the finish line (never mind likely to be around to do the seemingly important second term, likely to be caught with his hand up a little girl's skirt before then if not) do we know who his running mate is that will take up the mantle/be the actual candidate?


----------



## notimp (Apr 17, 2020)

Too harsh. (I know, coming from me..  )

Also names would help.  First up people didnt like Hillary interestingly enough for being career oriented early on (when she was still a 'governors wife'), this - over time lead to at least a partial cynicism towards populist public values on her part, which still kind of projects and in addition to that many people still remembered her in the old image. That was an issue for her campaign early on - and never quite went away. (People didn't perceive her as personable - the end.) You can watch the Hulu documentary and you get that.

Impeachment was risky, internally it was a struggle between the main wings of the democratic party. Oddly enough it seems to have helped internationally. Perception of the US as a hole changed at least a significant bit (in western europe at least). Could have lead to something, but always was unlikely to.

Also it was ended by the republicans early enough that it seems unlikely that they would make it a topic of debate during the election campaign).

Screeching in the primaries likely also will be forgotten, come campaign time - in the end most pundits were generally surprised how well the 'unifying' play went. That was most what was talked about in the end. (This forum is not representative.  )

You go with Biden, because he hits the demographics that you need well. (Elderly voters, racial minorities. Women as a vice presidential candidate ('progressive'?).) And you bet your house on him not flabbing (which still can be accomplished (media training  ) ) in a very favorable election climate. (Corona crisis hasnt raised the presidents approval ratings like expected (wonder why..  )).

Targeted voter profiles are only for mobilization of certain demographics (and mostly for them not to leave the house to vote, because its easier than changing their opinion). This is almost independant of candidate, because you can custom craft the messaging.

The groping scandal shouldnt be much of a problem with the older demographic, and in the end never was with President Clinton either - politically thats a tiny thing that surfaced past background checks, repubicans cant profit too much on it either (with a candidate like that). Also shouldnt be a predictor for his future behavior, and even if - you can manage that.

Second term - one step after the other.

Candidates that poll well, dont grow on trees. 

Did I forget something? 

Most of the impressions you mentioned shouldnt matter come campaign start. Other things we currently dont know of will. Oh, and the presidents handling of the crisis, of course. 

Thats how I see it.

Some of the things that are currently being talked about at as new potential deciding factors: Lower voter participation due to the epidemic. Public formats being different due to a lack of audiences (*meh*), economy (of course).

Edit: Oh, and Trump literally saying every possible thing. (Changing 'what should be done' in the crisis very, very frequently - so in the end you have soundbites for everything.) (Latest quote: 'The president should have all the authority' followed by 'the governors have the authority to end or prolong measures' the next day (that was caused by states forming alliances within themselves.))

Also still getting over my 'mental breakdown' so what do I know...  Its speculative anyhow. Take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> If Biden is basically assumed to drop dead at the finish line (never mind likely to be around to do the seemingly important second term, likely to be caught with his hand up a little girl's skirt before then if not) do we know who his running mate is that will take up the mantle/be the actual candidate?



Best case scenario is Biden does just this on his first night as president, he nosebleeds himself to death, and his VP Warren becomes president for the next 4. Hopefully 8. Then AOC is up.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 18, 2020)

notimp said:


> Too harsh. (I know, coming from me..  )
> 
> Also names would help.
> 
> ...


No names was a deliberate choice. Abstracted away from any names it does put things into a clearer perspective.

Is he likely to sway the elderly which have either a state or old person bent? Likewise while various people made a big song and dance about black guys voting for one Mr Trump is it still not generally assumed? Is the "real communism has never been tried" group likely to stay home or vote opposite because someone's VP has a set of testicles? Do the centrists/swing voters care there either?

As for candidates that poll well. As a general rule someone might have heard of a governor or mayor if they follow things and most politicos, or the lawyers that become them, generally keep their noses clean. To that end I doubt it is that hard to find a viable candidate.



Waygeek said:


> Best case scenario is Biden does just this on his first night as president, he nosebleeds himself to death, and his VP Warren becomes president for the next 4. Hopefully 8. Then AOC is up.


You would really pick Miss Cortez to lead the country? I mean I know some picked one Mr Trump as a "let's just see how silly this can get" but that is a bold choice.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> You would really pick Miss Cortez to lead the country? I mean I know some picked one Mr Trump as a "let's just see how silly this can get" but that is a bold choice.



Yeah man picking a president who prioritizes people over big business is a pretty weird choice.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Yeah man picking a president who prioritizes people over big business is a pretty weird choice.


Is that a defining trait? The amount of utter bollocks I have heard come out of her mouth and policies opted for/drawn up, as well as the silly games...
I am all for giving the finger to businesses and forcing to them to work for their money but reading that green new deal stuff (much less the "incorrect" version that "leaked"), her reasoning for the Amazon stuff, that nonsense at the border detainment place, her being someone that seemingly takes the oppression Olympics as cold hard fact and one of the pressing issues of our times... I think I would sooner vote for an uber religious "I can't wait for the end of the world and hope it happens before I die" type.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

AOC is barely qualified to be a barista, let alone a president. I have no idea how she was even elected, she's economically illiterate and an embarrassment to her office. As for Biden, I don't think he'll pose much resistance against Trump. Even if Biden takes his ginkgo biloba going forward and remembers his name, his dentures and most importantly, to even show up to the debates, Donald will run circles around him on the stage. Joe can barely string two words into a sentence, without a teleprompter the poor old man is lost. Four more years seems to be a likely scenario to me, regardless of the result of the popular vote, but we'll see how things go in November. Either way, it's going to be hilarious and I can't wait.


----------



## notimp (Apr 18, 2020)

Biden has been on tape recently trying to convince donors, by defining his base as white high school educated working class voters. So all the demographics above are just freebies. Thats the important one.  (At least when trying to convince donors.) Weither thats true (support base), we'll find out.  (Thats his case of why he should be the nominee.)

(src: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV45H08VmHc again, dont watch this source (The Hill) for the content of the commentary (more often than not sensationalistic for little/no reason))


edit: But in this case - watch that clip. There is an attack ad against Biden (Biden and China) in there thats so wrong argumentatively (republicans like free trade  ), but thats so filled with symbolism and music cues, that holy smokes, ... it works. (Also according to that attack ad china stole your Covid-19 protective equipment? (No, they didn't.  ))


----------



## notimp (Apr 18, 2020)

I used a metaphor in class and someone reported me:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-dreaded-sjw.558739/page-2#post-9018747


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that a defining trait?



Sure is.



FAST6191 said:


> The amount of utter bollocks I have heard come out of her mouth



Got some specific examples for us chief? Ought to be good.





Foxi4 said:


> AOC is barely qualified to be a barista, let alone a president.



America has had an actor for a president. Currently has a sexual assaulting reality tv star for a president. His 'business accumen' is strictly down to several million loans from daddy.

There are more qualities required of a leader than being an economist. Most would argue that's not even a pre-requisite. Trudeau for instance is known to be very weak economically.

Trump also heavily relies on teleprompters if he wants cohesive sentences, otherwise he talks in four word catchphrases that rile up crowds with IQ's in the double digits, @Foxi4.



notimp said:


> I used a metaphor in class and someone reported me:
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-dreaded-sjw.558739/page-2#post-9018747



*snip!*

MLK, Malcom X, Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Rage Against the Machine, Noam Chomsky, damn them 'sjws'.

What would you want with a just society anyway.

*snip!*


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> There are more qualities required of a leader than being an economist. Most would argue that's not even a pre-requisite. Trudeau for instance is known to be very weak economically.
> 
> Trump also heavily relies on teleprompters if he wants cohesive sentences, otherwise he talks in four word catchphrases that rile up crowds with IQ's in the double digits, @Foxi4.


Economic acumen is not a prerequisite, however it is a desirable quality. Don't worry, AOC has displayed other flavours of stupidity as well, like her intent on dismantling ICE and the DHS, her honest belief that the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and other various blunders. She actually thinks that large swathes of Americans work two jobs and 80-hour work weeks to make ends meet when in reality nothing is further from the truth. Time after time I see her talking with her foot firmly in her mouth because her policy prescriptions are based on her "feelings" and not on facts or statistics.

While we're on the subject of Justin "Blackface" Trudeau, he's also a horrible PM, and a weak leader who inspires zero confidence, so mentioning him doesn't really support your point. He's been a starlet in many cringe compilations, particularly his "hilarious" peoplekind quip. The man is full of self-loathing.

As for Trump, at least his four-word comebacks are funny, which is more than I can say about the other two politicians - they're just sad. The difference here is that Trump's shortcomings are priced into the package - we're not shocked when he says that he can walk down 5th Avenue, shoot someone and get away with it, or that he can grab'em by the the *cough cough*, because we expected that of him from the get-go. We *already know* that's the kind of guy he is, so there's no moment where the Scooby gang is taking the mask off the villain and it turns out to be Old Man Withers - Trump wears his flaws on his sleeve. "Trump scandals" don't severely affect his approval rating specifically because he doesn't sell himself as something he's not - he's a showman, and he runs a show. The same cannot be said about left-wing pundits and politicians who pretend to be holier than thou experts when in reality they often have no clue what they're talking about and they're just trying to rile up their base with some low-hanging fruit.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> [defining trait]Sure is.
> 
> Got some specific examples for us chief? Ought to be good.



Perhaps a rephrase. It is a trait unique to her? I see plenty of politicos willing to take companies to task and stand up for people. I find it a positive one but it hardly outweighs the negatives. Even when she did I am not entirely sure of the reasoning behind it either -- Amazon most likely were taking the piss but the comments about subsidies while the subways crumble... it was not like it was a loan or revenue being directed towards them as much as a hypothetical income, to say nothing of spend money to make money.

Chatting bollocks then.
I would again refer to the green new deal thing that came out of her camp. If it was green it was only a token/smokescreen.

I generally find the notion that the minorities are treated worse because of being a minority (be this the gays, the womens (not sure how that works but OK), those with variously greater amounts of melanin and very curiously some religious types seem to have wedged themselves in there despite that nominally being a choice) to be laughable and she seems to have bought into that in a big way, opting for policy and amendments to policy (or blocking because of lack of). That alone would kill any chances of me wanting to vote for her.

Print more money to pay for things. Which as a supposed economist is a rather bold statement. Technically they are right now I suppose but still does not make it a good idea (all the encouragement to save and you essentially go and tax them).

The attempted exclusion of press from public events, and various other things that would likely trouble the first amendment.

The nonsense at the border detention facilities. I find that to be disingenuous at best and displaying a lack of fundamental logic at worst.

This could go on.



Foxi4 said:


> I have no idea how she was even elected


Primarying.
Your party picks their choices for candidate in elections nobody really cares about, pick one where you and a few thousand of your mates can shuffle you in (also would not hurt if the incumbent was unpopular). Win the vote in a location with a massive margin in the round of votes that ultimately elect them and you get swept in by default by people doing the party loyalty thing.
It has been popular for years, you have variations on the theme going back to the Romans and Greeks, though in the US the democrats only got hit with it more recently (usually it was a right wing candidate being shuffled off by a further right wing one).


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

Trudeau is not a president. 

Good job skating over the fact that the US can have, and has had, presidents from any walk of life.

Trump is incredibly unfunny. He has not an ounce of wit in his body. He is the anti-Oscar Wilde.

And let's not bring up cringe compilations, Trump is prime fodder for those.

"Trump wears his flaws on his sleeve."

lmfao no, he's the single most defensive and thin skinned person on the planet. He has literally never acknowledged fault.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Perhaps a rephrase. It is a trait unique to her? I see plenty of politicos willing to take companies to task and stand up for people. I find it a positive one but it hardly outweighs the negatives. Even when she did I am not entirely sure of the reasoning behind it either -- Amazon most likely were taking the piss but the comments about subsidies while the subways crumble... it was not like it was a loan or revenue being directed towards them as much as a hypothetical income, to say nothing of spend money to make money.
> 
> Chatting bollocks then.
> I would again refer to the green new deal thing that came out of her camp. If it was green it was only a token/smokescreen.
> ...


Money machine goes brrrr, @FAST6191 - what could go wrong?  As for her election, despite the clear advantage you've described, she was still the underdog in that particular case, so there's a degree of luck and populism in that particular mix too. Dumb luck, you could say.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Money machine goes brrrr, @FAST6191 - what could go wrong?  As for her election, despite the clear advantage you've described, she was still the underdog in that particular case, so there's a degree of luck and populism in that particular mix too. Dumb luck, you could say.



Or not any of those things, maybe people in the real world, that is to say, people who don't hang on gaming boards, want a more progressive representative.

Occam's razor and all that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Trudeau is not a president.


My bad, Prime Minister. I forgot that Canada is still a part of the Commonwealth - unlike the US they never quite took off the colonial shackles, I'll make a correction.


> Good job skating over the fact that the US can have, and has had, presidents from any walk of life.


I most certainly don't disqualify people based on their background - I disqualify AOC on the grounds of her being an idiot.


> Trump is incredibly unfunny. He has not an ounce of wit in his body. He is the anti-Oscar Wilde.


Different strokes for different folks - I find him hilarious, for good and for bad reasons.


> And let's not bring up cringe compilations, Trump is prime fodder for those.


That's fair.


> "Trump wears his flaws on his sleeve."
> 
> lmfao no, he's the single most defensive and thin skinned person on the planet. He has literally never acknowledged fault.


What are you talking about? He's a very stable genius. 


Waygeek said:


> Or not any of those things, maybe people in the real world, that is to say, people who don't hang on gaming boards, want a more progressive representative.
> 
> Occam's razor and all that.


Sure, you go with that.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I most certainly don't disqualify people based on their background - I disqualify AOC on the grounds of her being an idiot.



Trump's got four years and he's a blithering moron who doesn't even know what lands he presides over.

Pretty sure she knows about Puerto Rico at least. So she's automatically more qualified.

Obama was a lawyer, Clinton was a career politician. You know any lawyers or career politicians? Least trustworthy individuals on the planet. Then they had Bush, less said there the better.

Nothing wrong with a person who is inherantly good but needs time to learn the ropes. In fact it's a better proposition in general.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Trump's got four years and he's a blithering moron who doesn't even know what lands he presides over.


I think people grossly underestimate him. He's a vain womanizer, his areas of expertise are very narrow and he has a penchant for talking about things he should have no business talking about, but so far his job performance is, at the very least, acceptable. That, and as an on-looker watching the show from a distance, I can't deny that the entertainment value far surpasses expectations. I certainly find him preferable to a potential Biden presidency, since realistically that's who he's up against.

*EDIT*: Responding to the updated post.


> Pretty sure she knows about Puerto Rico at least. So she's automatically more qualified.
> 
> Obama was a lawyer, Clinton was a career politician. You know any lawyers or career politicians? Least trustworthy individuals on the planet. Then they had Bush, less said there the better.
> 
> Nothing wrong with a person who is inherantly good but needs time to learn the ropes. In fact it's a better proposition in general.


Once again, I'm not opposed to people with no political background taking up office. Most people in my political camp build shrines for their Reagan portraits. My problem with AOC is that she's demonstrably stupid, based on her world view and the various political positions she's taken over the years. AOC doesn't have to "learn the ropes", she knows the ropes now, and I want her as far away from them as humanly possible.

On the bright side, our dislike of Clinton and Obama seems to be a unifying factor here - I wasn't a huge fan of them either.


----------



## Ignint (Apr 18, 2020)

I'm just posting to get my 5 messages in.... So ill just make a general comment towards the process.  

Very weird that out of all of america biden and trump are the people we choose to run for president...


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I think people grossly underestimate him.






Foxi4 said:


> My problem with AOC is that she's demonstrably stupid



You live in a mirror universe of your very own.

This world's reality is vastly different.

Mind you, you do hail from a place that has declared a good third of its' territory 'LGBT free' areas. It's not really surprising such a place produces radicalized right individuals.

*Snip!*


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> You live in a mirror universe of your very own.
> 
> This world's reality is vastly different.
> 
> Mind you, you do hail from a place that has declared a good third of its' territory 'LGBT free' areas. It's not really surprising such a place produces radicalized right individuals.


That's funny. My political stances are *extremely* unpopular in my home country, my beliefs are very much disconnected from my heritage. You seem to be putting all conservatives into one basket, that's a big mistake considering the various flavours of conservatism are very different from each other. It's a known obstacle for many left-of-center people, so don't take it as a jab at you, this is a common problem.

As far as I'm concerned, there are effectively no viable right wing parties in Poland - there's only the progressive, socialist "left" and the traditionalist, socialist "right", the difference between the two being that one worships the state whereas the other worships catholicism. In reality both sides of the political aisle are mere hiccups of the post-communist, post-PPR order. Not a single mainstream politician in the country even comes close to following the same philosophy of laissez-faire economics and maximised liberty that I hold dear - they're two sides of the same statist coin, which is to be expected from a political scene still recovering from the destructive effects of communism.

In any case, missed your shot there. You could've just asked what my political orientation was - I would've happily told you I'm a libertarian, or as I call myself, a "lolbertarian", which in my mind has the same goals, but pursues them via the path of maximum chaos and laughs. So far the last couple of years in American politics have been a source of endless entertainment, so it's a great time to be me.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's funny. My political stances are *extremely* unpopular in my home country



Nah. 

https://www.fairobserver.com/region...ight-alt-right-nationalism-europe-news-13241/



Foxi4 said:


> In any case, missed your shot there. You could've just asked what my political orientation was - I would've happily told you I'm a libertarian



I don't ask radicalized right their political leanings because they've been telling the same lie since 2014, as if there's a .txt file they share around with quotes to copy and paste; 'actually quite left', 'libertarian', 'centrist' all feature. They're all lies. Go to a rally defending some racist's statue in the states, you won't find one person admitting what they are. All part of the obfuscation, the fact they 'think' they are cleverer than everyone else. 



Foxi4 said:


> or as I call myself, a "lolbertarian", which in my mind has the same goals, but pursues them via the path that of maximum chaos and laughs. So far the last couple of years in American politics have been a source of endless entertainment, so it's a great time to be me.



Said without a hint of embarrassment. 

"Young children dying alone from mistreatment in detention centres is tres LULZ!"


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Nah.
> 
> https://www.fairobserver.com/region...ight-alt-right-nationalism-europe-news-13241/


Not sure what that proves, exactly. I don't identify with that party or its political program.


> I don't ask radicalized right their political leanings because they've been telling the same lie since 2014, as if there's a .txt file they share around with quotes to copy and paste; 'actually quite left', 'libertarian', 'centrist' all feature. They're all lies. Go to a rally defending some racist's statue in the states, you won't find one person admitting what they are. All part of the obfuscation, the fact they 'think' they are cleverer than everyone else.


You're clearly unfamiliar with what's considered "conservative" across the world. Your average Tory has very little in common with a Republican, for instance. In fact, the interests of Republicans or Tories are often diametrically opposed to those of libertarians. You can feign ignorance though, that doesn't bother me.


> Said without a hint of embarrassment.


Not one molecule of it.


> "Young children dying alone from mistreatment in detention centres is tres LULZ!"


Your words, not mine.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Not sure what that proves, exactly. I don't identify with that party or its political program.



*parties, and I doubt that very much. "I don't align myself with them. I just sound exactly like them."



Foxi4 said:


> You're clearly unfamiliar with what's considered "conservative" across the world.



Hardly, I would be conservative in a number of senses (there, something an alt-righter has literally never said). That doesn't include hating an intelligent young woman because I'm threatened by them.




Foxi4 said:


> You can feign ignorance though, that doesn't bother me.



Hey. That's my line.



Foxi4 said:


> Your words, not mine.



Yours are not required, you just called something funny, young children dying alone in detention centres is literally a large part of that something.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> *parties, and I doubt that very much. "I don't align myself with them. I just sound exactly like them."
> 
> Hardly, I would be conservative in a number of senses (there, something an alt-righter has literally never said). That doesn't include hating in intelligent young women because I'm threatened by them.
> 
> ...


I'm not entirely sure how putting an emphasis on civil liberties, shrinking the government (by which I mean both its physical size and its influence on everyday life), relaxed business regulations and individualism makes me the big bad here, but whatever floats your boat, buddy. It's nice to hear that you're conservative in many aspects of your life - that's a good thing, hold on to that.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not entirely sure how putting an emphasis on civil liberties, shrinking the government (by which I mean both its physical size and its influence on everyday life), relaxed business regulations and individualism makes me the big bad here, but whatever floats your boat, buddy. It's nice to hear that you're conservative in many aspects of your life - that's a good thing, hold on to that.



Again, this skating over being threatened by AOC and her achievements in a short space of time, and not giving a shit about the death of young children in detention centres. Skating over it with things I didn't ask.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Again, this skating over being threatened by AOC and her achievements in a short space of time, and not giving a shit about the death of young children in detention centres. Skating over it with things I didn't ask.


I'm not particularly threatened by AOC, her policies are non-starters and she'll end up exactly as Sanders did - unproductively coasting on a government position well into old age. That is, if she continues being re-elected by her constituency for whatever asinine reason. I understand that you're fanboying for her hard, but I really don't find her, or her achievements, impressive in any way.

As for kids in detention centers, the fact that you think a libertarian approves of detention (as in, the opposite of freedom, the thing we fanboy over) of young children (who are not legally liable for the wrongdoings of their guardians) by the state (the thing libertarians are such huge fans of) tells me all I need to know. I don't need to address this point - it's self-defeating as it is.

You do you, have fun and believe what you want to believe. That's the thing about libertarians - I don't particularly care what you do in your corner, I have my corner to worry about. There's no reason for you to get tilted just because I dislike your heroine who wants to further inflate the size and scope of the federal government, which is the inevitable direct consequence of her political objectives.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 18, 2020)

AOC has achieved much more than you ever will so, if you're not impressed by her, you must be a huge disappointment to yourself.

You're not libertarian. You are radicalized right. All the proof required was when you tried to cover up radicalized right influence in your country. And yes, I do believe you don't give a shit about dead children in detention centres. Considering you just called it funny.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 18, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> AOC has achieved much more than you ever will so, if you're not impressed by her, you must be a huge disappointment to yourself.
> 
> You're not libertarian. You are radicalized right. All the proof required was when you tried to cover up radicalized right influence in your country. And yes, I do believe you don't give a shit about dead children in detention centres. Considering you just called it funny.


Maybe you should scroll up and read the posts again, it looks like you failed the first time around. What I *actually* said was that as far as *I* am concerned there are no viable right wing parties in Poland because none of them reflect my views. There are only the authoritarian catholic right ones which sprouted as a result of years of communism making people accustomed to living under an authoritarian government's boot, and that's not my jam. In fact, I explicitly specified that they exist, and as far as economic policy goes I called them socialist because that's exactly what they are - post-communist hiccups that operate on hand-outs.

I also didn't "laugh at children in detention", what I actually said was that I'm a "lolbertarian", a person who pursues libertarian objectives via chaotic and humorous means. Everything else you've said in this matter is a fabrication that exists exclusively in your mind. In fact, you're the one who brought the issue up in the first place, in response to nothing.

Perhaps you too should take a break and drink some chamomile tea before you further embarrass yourself with your somewhat selective reading comprehension. You seem to understand some statements perfectly fine while others completely fly over your head, which is obviously intentional. It's a pretty transparent strategy, just so you know. I'm afraid that attacking my character by building increasingly more elaborate strawmen isn't going to work. Repeating that I'm the "radical right" over and over doesn't really change much, it just makes you wrong on multiple occasions as opposed to just one.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 19, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> AOC has achieved much more than you ever will so, if you're not impressed by her, you must be a huge disappointment to yourself.



That is a rather bold assumption to make of someone else, even more so if it is to be left to the one that does experiences life to determine their own merit/measures of achievement.

Equally not being impressed by someone so must be a disappointment yourself? How does that even work. They are not even connected concepts.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> AOC has achieved much more than you ever will so, if you're not impressed by her, you must be a huge disappointment to yourself.
> 
> You're not libertarian. You are radicalized right. All the proof required was when you tried to cover up radicalized right influence in your country. And yes, I do believe you don't give a shit about dead children in detention centres. Considering you just called it funny.


Hitler accomplished much more then I did and I'm not impressed by his work. Rather disappointed a human could reach that low.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 19, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Hitler accomplished much more then I did and I'm not impressed by his work. Rather disappointed a human could reach that low.


_*Ding ding ding*_ We've reached the point of Godwin's Law, Hitler's name has been invoked, which means that the conversation has now reached peak absurdity. Not your fault, mind - it's been absurd for a while.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> _*Ding ding ding*_ We've reached the point of Godwin's Law, Hitler's name has been invoked, which means that the conversation has now reached peak absurdity. Not your fault, mind - it's been absurd for a while.


Hitler Hitler HITLER 

Stalin Red Army TRUMP Liberal


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 19, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I also didn't "laugh at children in detention", what I actually said was that I'm a "lolbertarian"



No, it was in reference to the states.Therefore.



Foxi4 said:


> a person who pursues libertarian objectives via chaotic and humorous means.



I get that that chick you liked in high school didn't even realize you existed, but it's time to bin the My Chemical Romance t-shirts and mascara and join the real world, and realize things you find funny make people suffer, oftentimes, the most vulrnerable people.



Foxi4 said:


> before you further embarrass yourself



Some deep state irony coming from someone who calls themselves a 'lolbertarian'




FAST6191 said:


> That is a rather bold assumption to make of someone else



Not really, few have had the rise she has had recently.

Glad Foxi will at least admit how childish and ridiculous it was for @SG854 to draw equivalence between AOC and *FUCKING HITLER*. Grow the fuck up, seriously.

Same swift rise, different outlook on life entirely. She's not an emo shitlord at all, like ol' Adolf was and the radicalized right are.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 19, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> No, it was in reference to the states.Therefore.
> 
> I get that that chick you liked in high school didn't even realize you existed, but it's time to bin the My Chemical Romance t-shirts and mascara and join the real world, and realize things you find funny make people suffer, oftentimes, the most vulrnerable people.
> 
> ...


I find it hilarious that you call anyone left of AOC the "radical left" and anyone right of her the "radical right" - thank goodness, Cortez is the healthy center we've all been waiting for.

Speaking of high school sweethearts, she's not going to date you, buddy. You don't have to churn foam in your mouth just because someone called your dream lady an idiot, and make no mistake, she is an idiot, I'm not planning on retracting that.

When she was questioned about the details of her "Green New Deal", which was estimated to cost *93* trillion dollars over the course of the next decade (three times the total U.S. tax revenue, or 35% of the country's GDP, or the equivalent of 5 Iraq wars, *annually*) she answered:


			
				AOC the village idiot said:
			
		

> 'Oh, it's unrealistic, oh it's fake, oh it doesn't address this little minute thing. And I'm like, 'You try! You do it.' 'Cause you're not. 'Cause you're not. So, until you do it, I'm the boss. How 'bout that?


Very erudite. Now I understand how we'll get all that money. "At least I'm trying and they're not" is not an argument when your proposals are impossible to implement - she may as well say that she wants to build the world's biggest vacuum cleaner and suck all of the greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere, it's equally feasible. The plan is so colossally stupid that it's not even worth talking about, not to mention that it's based on a false premise to begin with. The world is not going to end in 12 years, the global temperature will simply increase *over the course of a century*. We've known that for a while, and we're working on reducing emissions as-is.

We've talked long enough, to be honest - it's been a good page or two and I'm afraid I exhausted your entertainment value now that you started repeating yourself. I'll let others chime in and discuss the actual subject of this thread. If you want to fanboy over Cortez some more, I'm sure you can write a blog entry about it. Now, let's get back to Sanders, his suspended campaign and how backing out now saves more sweet, sweet donations money for a new summer home.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 19, 2020)

Do you get to keep donations in such circumstances?

I mean I doubt he will be hurting for money (you tend not to even seriously try unless you are reasonably secure), and can probably squeeze a book or three (the true also rans/never contenders tending to only have the one book, though do it right and that is still your retirement), then some memoirs/autobiography, and if he gets bored wander up to any business wonk conference/dinner/talk in the next 10 years* and say "how about it?", before being paid what most would consider an annual salary whilst seriously using a word lamer than synergy. Don't know if he will be able to do the board seats game (either passively as name recognition or for the little black book) but it is a common path too.

*maybe 15 for his mob, though I imagine such peeps are a bit light on conferences and lower on appearance fees (not that most of us would turn our noses up at a mere half an annual salary for a few hours of not even hard graft).


----------



## Dwommynator (Apr 19, 2020)

You don't know Sh`t about the world when you're 18 that's for sure.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 19, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Do you get to keep donations in such circumstances?
> 
> I mean I doubt he will be hurting for money (you tend not to even seriously try unless you are reasonably secure), and can probably squeeze a book or three (the true also rans/never contenders tending to only have the one book, though do it right and that is still your retirement), then some memoirs/autobiography, and if he gets bored wander up to any business wonk conference/dinner/talk in the next 10 years* and say "how about it?", before being paid what most would consider an annual salary whilst seriously using a word lamer than synergy. Don't know if he will be able to do the board seats game (either passively as name recognition or for the little black book) but it is a common path too.
> 
> *maybe 15 for his mob, though I imagine such peeps are a bit light on conferences and lower on appearance fees (not that most of us would turn our noses up at a mere half an annual salary for a few hours of not even hard graft).


In theory left-over funds can be donated to charities, contributed to other candidates (up to $2000 per candidate, IIRC), kept for future campaigns or refunded, the general rule of thumb is that they're spent. These rules were set in place in 1980, until that point candidates could spend the money on personal expenses. It's worth mentioning that these rules were made with candidates themselves in mind, not Super PACs. I'm obviously joking around about the summer homes, he already has several properties and a nice income from his book deal and his senator's salary, but I'm sure some of the money "slips between the cracks" as candidates wind down their campaigns and pay off the remaining expenses.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> No, it was in reference to the states.Therefore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't comparing AOC to Hitler.

I was saying that just because someone accomplishes something more then you doesn't mean you have to be impressed by them, especially if the thing they accomplished isn't something you like. And it doesn't mean you have to be disappointed in yourself if they accomplish more. That's what I meant by bringing up Hitler. There no comparison at all about AOC being equal to Hitler on the bad stuff he did.

There will always be someone that accomplishes more then you, always. If you are going to be disappointed in yourself just because someone out there is always better then you, you're going to set up yourself to be forever dissapointed and unsatisfied with your life, even sometimes going into depression territory.

And really, the only reason why I even brought up Hitler in the first place is because you've become really hostile in this thread. Even attacking people's character with that you must be disappointed in yourself comment which is ad-hoc and has no relevance in this debate. You are going beyond normal debate conversation and getting angrily vicous. Your comments are unpleasant to read with you being that hostile.

If there is anyone thats immature its you for not handling others opinions to well. Just say you opinion and be done with it. No need for the hostility.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 19, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I find it hilarious that you call anyone left of AOC the "radical left" and anyone right of her the "radical right" - thank goodness, Cortez is the healthy center we've all been waiting for.



Now who's putting words in who's mouth? I never said anything of the like. I don't think in those black and white terms and nor should you, we are Europeans that have four or five active parties in our political system.

You do, because you've been radicalized.



Foxi4 said:


> Speaking of high school sweethearts, she's not going to date you, buddy. You don't have to churn foam in your mouth just because someone called your dream lady an idiot, and make no mistake, she is an idiot, I'm not planning on retracting that.



Projecting eh? She's not really my type, but I bet you furiously hate masturbate to her.



Foxi4 said:


> "At least I'm trying and they're not"



She is 100% right to say this. Doing *something* is better than being intentionally paralyzed with the fucking idiotic and unhelpful on the spot 'where's the money coming from?' question. Where does money for ANYTHING come from? If that's your definition of 'demonstrably stupid' I'm afraid your argument is in deep doo doo.

Oh, I see you know this so you've bowed out. Good.



SG854 said:


> I wasn't comparing AOC to Hitler.



Did I say compare, or did I say draw equivalence to? Because you absolutely did the second.



SG854 said:


> If there is anyone thats immature its you for not handling others opinions to well. Just say you opinion and be done with it. No need for the hostility.



Oh god is your argument really 'if you think about it, it's YOU'? Seriously, grow up. Seriously.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> Now who's putting words in who's mouth? I never said anything of the like. I don't think in those black and white terms and nor should you, we are Europeans that have four or five active parties in our political system.
> 
> You do, because you've been radicalized.
> 
> ...


When you interacted with @notimp you immediately called him the radicalized left because he disagreed with your "feelings first, statistics second" approach. I somewhat agreed at the time because homelessness is invisible and statistics don't necessarily show the full extent of the problem - a lot of people are temporarily homeless and never reach out for help, so they're not recorded. You then proceeded to call me the radicalized right because I called AOC an idiot for throwing everything and the kitchen sink at a problem with *no* plan to fund it all, which is a response outsized to the point of being ridiculous. Or because I'm a libertarian who finds current political events funny. Or both, who knows at this point. Casual observation leads to a very simple conclusion - everyone who disagrees with you is radicalized, you believe that you're correct and everyone else must necessarily be wrong, and now you call *me* out for thinking in black and white terms. The irony is palpable.

If you come up with a plan that cannot be executed, you've done nothing but wasted everyone's time writing a fanfic - this is not how sensible legislation works. Unless you can expect results in a reasonable time frame, your proposal is ineffective. AOC's proposals are not just ineffective, they're stupid because they don't go past step zero, which is being able to *start* implementing them *at all*. I'll give her some credit - she's a good organizer, she has a penchant for crowd funding charity, and she should focus on that. Her food bank initiative, which she's involved in right now, is beneficial to local communities and admirable. Sadly, her ideas in terms of the macro scale are, simply put, dumb.

The only reason why I won't engage you on the subject any further is because all the bases are already covered and prodding you further wouldn't lead to anything productive besides you bursting a blood vessel, and I wouldn't want that. I don't have a tendency to argue with unreasonable people who refuse to acknowledge reality in the face of overwhelming evidence that disproves their preconceptions. You're welcome to live in your alternative reality where AOC is a great thinker and not an obnoxious extremist with zero experience and no worthwhile input as far as national policy is concerned.


----------



## Waygeek (Apr 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> When you interacted with @notimp you immediately called him the radicalized left



I absolutely did not. Quote me.



Foxi4 said:


> because he disagreed with your "feelings first, statistics second" approach.



More lies, huh? My approach is that the stats don't tell anywhere near the whole story, because they're taken incorrectly, and interpreted incorrectly. Nothing to do with 'feelings'. Stop being a transparent liar.




Foxi4 said:


> You then proceeded to call me the radicalized right because I called AOC



You are, because you conduct yourself exactly like one. Lying, reframing, disproportionately disliking certain people the radicalized right love to hate for no justifiable reason. Calling yourself a LOLbertarian and ignoring people's plights because they don't affect you... Denying how rife the RR are in Poland... just so much evidence. Doesn't matter how you try to reframe any of it.



Foxi4 said:


> If you come up with a plan that cannot be executed, you've done nothing but wasted everyone's time writing a fanfic - this is not how sensible legislation works. Unless you can expect results in a reasonable time frame, your proposal is ineffective. AOC's proposals are not just ineffective, they're stupid because they don't go past step zero



They're stupid if you've never heard of five year, ten year plans.




Foxi4 said:


> The only reason why I won't engage you on the subject any further is because



I know what you are.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> I absolutely did not. Quote me.
> 
> More lies, huh? My approach is that the stats don't tell anywhere near the whole story, because they're taken incorrectly, and interpreted incorrectly. Nothing to do with 'feelings'. Stop being a transparent liar.
> 
> ...


Oh, my apologies, he was the "mentally ill lunatic", I'm the radical - I lose track of all the stuff that had to be censored from your posts merely to allow you to express yourself, rather than just deleting the content outright. I'm sorry, you didn't call him one invective, you called him another. 

In any case, "plans" with no funding mechanism attached to them are not plans at all, they're fiction, regardless of whether they're 1 year or 100 year ones. I don't think you even understand the gravity of the cost here - you'd have to *triple* the tax revenue to even have a chance at funding this thing, and you wouldn't have anything left over for any essential spending, it's just not realistic. I don't even hate her - I just find her obnoxious and stupid, she has no business being in Congress at all. It's not an irrational stance, I've supplied ample evidence to demonstrate that she's unqualified.

You keep saying that I'm denying the existence of the radical right in Poland when I never did - you just can't read, and I can't help you with that, primary school education was supposed to sort that out. I don't "ignore people's plights", I find the current political climate to be funny, and it is quite funny - your existence is one of its byproducts.

As I've said, this discussion is over - unless you intend to add to the discussion about Sanders, you may as well write your political expose on your blog. Any further comments that are not pertaining to the subject of this thread will just be deleted, it's been derailed long enough and I don't intend to coddle you any further.


----------



## notimp (Apr 27, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> If Biden is basically assumed to drop dead at the finish line (never mind likely to be around to do the seemingly important second term, likely to be caught with his hand up a little girl's skirt before then if not)


Uh, subtle... (Referring to the Larry King Live clip below.)

Starting at 08:50 in


(Also issues in the food supply chain, shortly before..  )


----------

