I wonder how many times I would have to say that I haven’t been saying that you’re dumb to get you to stop saying that I’ve been saying that you’re dumb. I’ll just repeat that you’re not doing any favors for your argument, which itself is what’s dumb, by saying that I’m saying what I’m not even saying, which is that you yourself are dumb.
How about a new topic: Do you have any favorites by Gertrude Stein?
The Autobiography is amazing, of course, but I’m partial to Four in America, and especially Thornton Wilder’s introduction.
Tangentially related…
No, after the election, one is actually filling the position.
Pigeons on the grass, alas…
Yes, AFTER the election.
This is in response to you opposing giving public money to candidates for elections in an attempt to level the playing field and (hopefully) removing the advantage money has in politics.
So again, technically, both candidates are applying for the position until AFTER the election, the time during which publicly financed elections would involve giving money to people is BEFORE the election.
I’ll post a pic in a few minutes
Glasses = YES! He locked eyes with me and I smiled and was like, no! LOL
If that is how you feel, that the corporations are in control, and that trickles down to the police etc. - let me ask you this.
And I should preface this with I don’t really know exactly what YOU, Cowicide, feels, so this is just a general question for the left leaning who want more government control and programs in certain ares.
If you feel the corporations are in control of the government WHY would you ever want to get them MORE power and MORE control over stuff? I guess having libertarian leanings makes me a nut, but I don’t see how wanting LESS government, especially when we both agree the government is run by people who don’t have the People’s well being in their best interest, is a bad thing.
Like the recent Healthcare laws. Now you are FORCING Americans to buy from the Corporations. If you really think they are in control did you not stop to think they would make sure the laws benefited them? I know people who had insurance, the company cancelled their cheaper plans, and now their rates literally doubled in some cases.
BB points this out pretty much any time the gov. passes laws for copyrights, encryption, communications regulations, etc. It poisons everything they touch, and you want to give them MORE control in some areas?
It seems to me, one would want to first clean house, limit their power, set more term limits etc. Politician shouldn’t be a career. It should be something you do for a few years to give back to the nation. THEN once the rats are mostly out, move forward with your ideas.
And for the record I am not against social programs. I think we need to do them SMARTLY in order to not over extend ourselves. One has to have a clear plan on how the gov is going to pay for said programs. Right now we can barely pay for the annual budget for what we have with out shutting the gov. down for a week. But at the same time I SEE how these programs help people. I used them in the 80s some as a kid. I also SEE how a low minimum wage basically subsidizes large companies. If you can work 40hrs at a job and still qualify for welfare, then something isn’t right. The welfare system is subsidizing low wage jobs. Id rather see higher wages, less welfare.
Well, this is interesting…
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
The establishment gets exposed. The polls are wrong. Turns out when people actually vote nationwide in large numbers, Sanders is capable of winning Democratic voters in a massive landslide against Hillary Clinton.
So, now this happens …
https://twitter.com/Kratzer1Laura/status/677931844969582592
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWh_a6YVAAEDnGy.jpg
They’re getting absolutely desperate. The corrupt, slimy collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC is getting exposed for all to see. The jig is up.
But the government agent has a moral claim on my cash because they’re acting in the interest of the country, even if I disagree. A candidate who has not been elected yet has no claim on my money at all. It’s immoral to claim otherwise.
Those numbers are bullshit. There are many articles out there who point this out, because it just tracks those on unemployment. Doesn’t track those out of work so long they don’t qualify for unemployment. Those who gave up looking for work, and those who are “under employed”, working at low wage jobs even though they have degrees/skills.
Granted I have had a good job for over a year now, but it was absolutely brutal finding one. I have a friend with similar skill set out of work since June and is working at Game Stop for the time being.
Granted there are fields where work is booming, but it isn’t a matter of just going out and getting a job.
I know Mourinho has left them in a bit of a mess, but they should be able to recover before then, surely. Even if they get relegated.
I believe my analogy was between candidates and roads. I’m pretty sure there is a difference between a government agent and a road as well.
I think we should publicly fund campaigns, you don’t. If there was a referendum I would vote for and you would vote against and one of us would be disappointed in the outcome, but saying that if my side won you would be wronged because your money was supporting candidates makes no more sense than me saying that if your side won I would be wronged because I didn’t get my way.
So what if we treat ‘campaigning’ as a ‘job’. So that way they’d be a bureaucrat, and it would also mean we’d have a bit more control over them.
Solved.
(mind you, I still think the ‘moral opposition’ bit is an absurdist argument and morality has nothing to do with it, if I vote against somebody and they send us to war, do I no longer have the right to say I’m morally opposed? I didn’t create this government and it does not adhere to my morality)
I think the question is whether it is in the public interest that the public be informed about the position of each candidate vying for office. I think the answer is transparently yes, and I think it is worth spending money to accomplish that. The government would presumably spend money to alert me if there was going to be a hurricane in my area without any endorsement of hurricanes, and without the view that the hurricane works for the government. For the same reason, it makes sense to spend money to alert me that Donald Trump might be the next president.
[quote=“Mister44, post:200, topic:70876”]
If you feel the corporations are in control of the government WHY would you ever want to get them MORE power and MORE control over stuff?
[/quote]READ what it says. She wants less corporate control of our government, not elimination of total control they supposedly have.
If corporations were in complete control, I would be very busy violently attacking the United States Capitol right now along with millions of other Americans revolting against their fascist dictatorship. It would be total war right now.
Very fortunately, we don’t live in that over-simplified world you portend I live in.
In the real world, the problem is the corporatists in the USA have too much control, not total control. As it stands today, we still have a crumbling democracy within our struggling republic. That’s what I want to strengthen – our democracy.
Please don’t be obtuse – We do NOT want to randomly give some random, corrupt government entities more control over random shit. What we want is:
(PLEASE TRY TO FOLLOW THIS TIME)
A government that is under more control by its people instead of corporatists. That means average Americans call most of the shots, not corrupt aristocrats who pay off our politicians with legalized bribery.
Do you still not understand this concept? If not… I’m sorry, we’re at an impasse here.
Related:
Complain all you like, but they’re the numbers in use and have been for plenty of time. It’s a baseline indicator of economic health, and if you need a more current example, then look to the Fed’s raising interest rates. And there is room for nuance in the numbers, but on the whole it’s clear that these conditions are nowhere near what the previous poster would have us believe are the economic straights of '08 or the great depression.
Be careful! From the looks of the picture, he’s coming over to grapple with you! Or at the very least jab his hand into your plate and steal your BBQ sandwich!!
I don’t think leaning libertarian makes you a nut, but I do think it makes you falsely stereotype liberals as being “pro government” or that they “want big government” or whatever. It’s a common stereotype of liberals, and maybe it’s true of many mainstream liberals, but far left liberals tend to be some of the most critical of government. I mean, when you look at the people who go to anti-government protests, what’s their political makeup? Were the anti-WTO protests a largely Republican affair?
Hence all the left anarchists!
Umm, the healthcare bill was designed by the Heritage Institute. It’s not a liberal program. Liberals were screaming for a public option…and they didn’t get it. And they heavily criticized Obama for it. But the plan itself was formulated by heritage to serve as Gingrich’s proposal to Bill Clinton’s healthcare plan, and was first implemented by Mitt Romney as governor of MA.
“Stop hitting yourselves, libtards!” is about what I get from you criticizing liberals for Obamacare.
It does not poison everything it touches; in many ways, it works so well that you don’t even notice it. Liberals tend to favor certain government policies. Libertarians tend to favor different government policies. But the notion that liberals just want more government policies for the sake of having more government policies is a lie you guys tell yourselves to pat yourselves on the back about how much wiser you are than those durned liberals.
How do you do this without first getting candidates elected who will vote for these measures?
Minimum wage increases choke small businesses and favor large businesses. Also, people who are unemployed now don’t get the benefit of the minimum wage. How about a basic income guarantee or negative income tax instead of either a minimum wage or welfare?
Edit:
See also: Liberals for Limited Government
