|
Post by jaedrik on Oct 15, 2015 21:58:12 GMT -5
No need when I can look at these bad sources to refute them. For starters, all of jaedrik's sources are speculation and opinion based pieces instead of actual data. I'm going to start in weird order, but I would like to tackle the piece on pharmaceuticals and regulations on them. As Aristotle and Aquinas taught, every study has its proper method. One cannot apply the deductive logic used to arrive at undeniable truths in metaphysics to the physical sciences which require an inductive method. Likewise, economics is a deductive and psychological science. The article in question: mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-fda "Sachs is being somewhat disingenuous in representing the production cost of Sofosbuvir as $100, and the markup as 800 times costs (as he did in an August 7 tweet. There are substantial fixed costs involved in R&D, trials and FDA approval, and the like. Any company incurring those costs expects to recover them by charging an above-marginal cost, and if trade secrets or other features of the market allow them to do so, they will." In this particular, whether he's right or wrong is tertiary and does not undermine the main points of the article as his mess-up here in no way disproves anything else. The principle behind the example is sound, they merely don't apply to Sofosbuvir. x800 of production cost is just a number which is irrelevant to the true nature of our discussion: namely, why the thing costs so much. Either way, including R&D and other costs or not (which I don't know Gilead inherited the debt or anything else), they'd still be in massive excess. Terrell is right in this particular. The free market drives down costs and raises quality of service. Bad drug companies would be punished according to the mandates of the market economically, and by civil law on damages against particular people. Anyone that puts some thought on the subject knows that removing patents would lead to a mad rush by the competition to get in on the lucrative profits available, thus increasing the supply and driving down costs. The best solution is to abolish the patent system. Who are you to say your arbitrary "reasonable time limit" and "reasonable prices" are inherently morally superior to the free market's non-arbitrarily decided time limits and prices? There are infinitely more problems with government granted monopoly and price controls as a whole than the purported injustices of the market process. Aspirin makers are naturally incentivized to inform, takers are naturally incentivized to know. People will make stupid decisions regardless, and I'd argue that the same people who will not do what they OUGHT and take preventative steps like you mentioned won't be affected by this. In fact, in their attempts to rationalize their stupidity, they will likely already know the facts about aspirin and use the drug in such a manner. Then there are the people who actually need to know this stuff to save them. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Oct 15, 2015 22:07:55 GMT -5
Also dis mises.org/blog/donalds-remarks-bubble-and-fed-are-money"Well at least one of the candidates vying for the Republican or Democratic presidential nomination appears to have a reasonable grasp of current economic reality and the complicity of the Federal Reserve in exacerbating an impending financial disaster. In an interview with The Hill, Donald Trump blasted the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law as a 'disaster.' Trump noted that despite Dodd-Frank 'we’re in a bubble right now anyway.' He pointed to social media companies that have issued IPOs worth 'billions' but 'haven’t even made 10 cents.' Trump also showed insight into the political machinations of the Fed, accusing Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen of resisting an increase in interest rates to protect the incumbent administration from leaving office during a recession. In Trump's words: 'She’s keeping the economy going, barely. The reason they’re keeping the interest rate down is Obama doesn’t want to have a recession-slash-depression during his administration.' Such a plain-spoken indictment of the Fed from a politician is always welcome, regardless of its source." hohohoho Still don't like Trump tho. Also hey look Mises Media just posted a relevant video to the above discussions if you're interested. Edit: dang, it talks about the 'less government worse care' stuff. It's true in a sense.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 16, 2015 0:47:29 GMT -5
Aspirin makers are naturally incentivized to inform, takers are naturally incentivized to know. People will make stupid decisions regardless, and I'd argue that the same people who will not do what they OUGHT and take preventative steps like you mentioned won't be affected by this. In fact, in their attempts to rationalize their stupidity, they will likely already know the facts about aspirin and use the drug in such a manner. Then there are the people who actually need to know this stuff to save them. No, they aren't. Liver toxicity from Acetaminophen has been known since at least 1975, when The Lancet published an article about the damage they do to the liver, even going as far to say if it were discovered today it wouldn't be available without a prescription. However they didn't include these warnings on bottles until 2009 when the FDA mandated companies to do so. It's true companies will respond to bad press when something occurs with their products... Say Tylenol's response when their market share plummeted after people died from poison being put in their products in 1982. But their response was ultimately pointless and only made people feel safer, even though tamper proof seal doesn't do anything, and was in response to one incident. Meanwhile over 150 people die a year from Acetaminophen use and over 50,000 suffer from liver damage directly caused by Acetaminophen use. And yet it wasn't until the FDA mandated companies to warn of the dangers of internal bleeding and liver damage, that companies started to do so. All you have to do is turn on the TV to see things being advertised that are horrible for you with little to no warning, outside of the products that are required to do so by law. Cigarettes are another great example, where companies were selling a highly dangerous substance without warning. The notion that companies want or are incentivized to inform their customers is just flat out false. They don't want consumers to know the negative aspects of their products, if they did advertising wouldn't exist as it does.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 16, 2015 10:08:18 GMT -5
No need when I can look at these bad sources to refute them. For starters, all of jaedrik's sources are speculation and opinion based pieces instead of actual data. I'm going to start in weird order, but I would like to tackle the piece on pharmaceuticals and regulations on them. As Aristotle and Aquinas taught, every study has its proper method. One cannot apply the deductive logic used to arrive at undeniable truths in metaphysics to the physical sciences which require an inductive method. Likewise, economics is a deductive and psychological science. That's a lot of philosophical BS to avoid the fact that these articles are speculation that you are presenting rather than actual data. Yes it does, because as anyone knows, most cases where a drug company buys another drug company or drug patent and then marks up the price involves a drug that has already had R&D done. Another assumption: that the free market both drives down costs and raises quality. This is a large assumption and really shows your flawed biases. And of course you bring it up with ZERO PROOF. Like really, you pull this disingenuous bullshit, especially when we know for a fact that Government based healthcare will always negotiate lower costs for pharmaceuticals than private insurers, thus disproving half of your statement And companies can only get sued if there is proper regulation to justify the legal action. First off, who the Foxtrot are you claim, without an actual argument against my specific idea other than more GOVERNMENT = BAD assumptions, that my idea wouldn't work. Are you seriously saying that PATENTS shouldn't exist? You can't be Foxtroting serious. Removing patents would lead to other companies constantly spying on each other to steal one another's ideas and would discourage any company from being the one to do the actual R&D when they can just wait for another company to do that R&D first. I also like that you had no counter to me pointing out the fact that it's completely disingenuous for the article to suggest that the FDA having time to evaluate the risks and benefits of a drug is a bad thing. Where do drug companies have incentive to inform their customers of risk without proper regulation telling them they have to inform their patients of risk and a government body to enforce said regulation? You even had Camel cigarettes trying to market to CHILDREN. Do you forget that even cigarettes required government intervention for them to actually put warnings on their cartons, or are you just being willfully ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 16, 2015 10:20:55 GMT -5
haha are you guys like actually reading this shit How else am I supposed to disprove an article? jaedrik, are you going to provide direct sources or continue arguing by posting arguments from mises.org?
|
|
|
Post by illram on Oct 16, 2015 11:52:31 GMT -5
I think it's fair to cite Bioshock as a case study in why Libertarian economic theory would lead to disaster.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 16, 2015 12:07:22 GMT -5
I think it's fair to cite Bioshock as a case study in why Libertarian economic theory would lead to disaster. You can simply site America pre-20th century as why Libertarian societies don't work, unless of course somehow it's okay to have a 1/5 infant mortality rate, children forced into labor, and wage/non-wage slavery.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 16, 2015 12:48:03 GMT -5
haha are you guys like actually reading this shit Naw, I just skim through the post. I'm not gonna read the articles, I've already heard most of this Anarcho-capitalist rhetoric before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 14:11:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 0:02:29 GMT -5
So here's the First Democratic Presidential Debate. Feel free to watch it if you have two hours to burn.
A lot of people in polls say that Bernie Sanders won the debate. The media claims Hillary won. I got to ask. Why?
I think I understand why Bernie stood out in this debate. Everyone was well-mannered, on-point, and made viable arguments for their cause at every chance. Make no mistake; everyone won this debate in a sense. But Bernie got everyone going. He was nailing points down by repeating things several times throughout the debate. It may be annoying, but he's highlighting certain phrases to be more memorable. Bernie's points, where applicable, also lead him to say several things bluntly instead of a more diplomatic approach. In the end he opened up everyone else in the stands. He got Hillary laughing, and there are times when they both seemed to be buddy-buddy with one another throughout the debate. There's several times where Sanders is caught on camera sharing a chuckle or two with the senator on his right. Again, it's this idea of looking genuine that's winning over the people. It doesn't really matter what Bernie stands for; neither integrity or his intentions can be questioned. It's obvious people love this guy because of his principles.
So... why is there this disconnect between the media and Bernie? Why does the media seem to favour Hillary by a landslide where the polls favour Bernie by a landslide? Is Hillary really paying off that many people? Probably. But let's assume otherwise. Assuming people aren't just being paid off, a disconnect between the media and the people may be happening here. It's like the PC version of MW2 getting lots of 0s on metacritic despite being critically acclaimed. The people love Bernie for his principles, but what about his platform? Maybe people neck-deep into politics might look at her platform and don't really care about how she presents herself in public. Maybe Hillary has the godsend plan that pans out for the best, and has the experience to make it work. That, or she just has too much power and she's going to go full Palpatine on everyone.
Here's the Second Republican Presidential Debate. It's three hours.
In the first 17 minutes Donald Trump takes a shot at Rand Paul for only holding 1% of the poll vote. He says that he shouldn't be here, which sparks the most eloquent flame war you will ever watch. The worst part? Trump keeps doing this. Several times he disrupts the topic, goes off on a tangent, and fires shots in someone's direction. Despite being entertaining at times, it's really juvenile and counter-productive.
The discussion of abortion comes up. Skip a few minutes in that. These people are politicians, not philosophers. The topic of marijuana comes up. Someone mentions having to bury a child over drugs, and from there I knew I had to skip this part. Anything involving foreign affairs and the environment is a conversation of how the USA might turn out as bleak as the world of Path of Exile. Enjoy that.
Similar to Bernie, Trump is high in the polls. Similar to Bernie, he's ruthless in laying down his ideas. He might even say things too good to be true; things that congress would never pass. To his credit, he is blunt in bringing up issues like illegal immigration among other things. People want him; but when it's time to deliver will this aggressive instigation bode well for the people of America? Those same neck-high experts from earlier probably say otherwise. Maybe they want someone else to represent the Republicans. Still- one person, one vote.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 19, 2015 8:49:07 GMT -5
A lot of people in polls say that Bernie Sanders won the debate. The media claims Hillary won. I got to ask. Why? Probably this reason The media is funding Hillary, of course they're going to favor her. Also I watched the debate live, I thought Hillary did alright, she did hit Bernie hard on Gun Control, but that was it really. I think Bernie overall did better, especially on the NSA and the Patriot Act. I mean twice Hillary fell back on "I'm a woman, so vote for me", and then was 100% okay with the Patriot Act, had some weak arguments why Glass Steagall shouldn't be reenacted. Something about "oh well I'm worried about this shadowy new threat I've heard about. So I'm working on the next catastrophe" Regardless of who won, I think we can all agree the Democrat Party won. While the Republicans are cannibalizing each other, the Democrats were much more restrained. The Democratic debate was also extremely issue focused, whereas the Republican debates were 50% personal attacks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 13:09:03 GMT -5
Well, that was quick.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 20, 2015 13:45:08 GMT -5
Damn, that's an impressive victory.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 20, 2015 15:32:25 GMT -5
Just goes to show that "big tent" campaigning is becoming increasingly successful. Only reason it hasn't led to as much success in the US is due to gerrymandering and voter suppression. If Democrats in the US manage to keep the White House long enough to replace the more conservative Supreme Court justices and strike down Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression it'll only be a matter of time before Democrats regain control on a State and Legislature level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 23:42:40 GMT -5
Honestly Harper was largely uncontested over the last decade. There was even a former US governor running the Liberal party at one point; people didn't like that. I've noticed Carly Fiorina has been recently given credit for being an up-and-coming candidate for the Republicans. That is, at least the Late Night Show with Stephen Colbert gave her mentions. EDIT: It turns out Carly Fiorina ran HP into the ground and got bailed out 21 million when she left. It turns out Trump was telling the truth. And now for Bernie jamming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 19:15:29 GMT -5
No major updates so far; none beyond the fact that Ben Carson is leading the Republicans at the moment. The difficult part in reading the polls is that there's a mountain of data out there that's utterly worthless. Polls hosted by news outlets can be cherry-picked or biased in a number of ways, data from over a month or two ago isn't relevant if there's a date at all, and in many cases sample size isn't mentioned.
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 15, 2015 19:24:45 GMT -5
In my opinion, it's quite simple.
Bernie Sanders = an unapologetic socialist and a complete nut job regarding his views on terrorism. The fact that he's actually receiving real consideration for the Presidency is emblematic of how sad our society has become with regards to understanding the consequences of socialism.
Hillary Clinton = likely the most corrupt politician EVER! Absolutely un-electable.
Donald Trump = untrustworthy and unqualified to become president; in total he's pretty much a buffoon.
Ted Cruz = someone who passes the eye test; I may not agree with him on all his positions, but he's got some good stances on key topics. He's clearly very intelligent and an exceptional debater.
Marco Rubio = someone who passes the eye test; again, I may not agree with him on all things, but I generally like most of his key positions. Also, I like his chances more than any other candidate in challenging the Democratic party.
Ben Carson = a like-able enough guy, but like D.Trump he's sort of falls under the unqualified category. Also, like most candidates I don't agree with all their positions or what what they shoot their mouths off about, but I wouldn't mind seeing him as a potential VP candidate.
Jeb Bush = someone I don't really like or hate; I just think he's kind of un-electable due to his last name.
Chris Christie = a good debater, but I don't like his chances against the Democratic party as much as Rubio or Cruz.
The rest of the candidates (except possibly Fiorina) have no shot.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 15, 2015 22:31:40 GMT -5
Cruz passes the eye test? The guy involved in supporting the tactic of holding the country for hostage?
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 16, 2015 6:31:00 GMT -5
Berry Sanders = an unapologetic socialist and a complete nut job regarding his views on terrorism. The fact that he's actually receiving real consideration for the Presidency is emblematic of how sad our society has become with regards to understanding the consequences of socialism. Yeah, how dare people be upset that the top .1% have as much wealth as the bottom 90%. How dare people who work 40 hours a week feel like they should be earning enough money to live on. And yeah, we should just nuke all of the middle east. Peace is a foolish thing to strive for.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Dec 16, 2015 10:18:00 GMT -5
Lantern, I'm totally shocked that you wrote those words about Sanders INSTEAD of Trump. I don't think there is anything more telling of how sad society has become if Trump is now getting real consideration.
I don't see how you can consider Cruz intelligent.
Anyway you're clearly red and not blue so your summary of the politicians is very transparent from wearing red-tinted glasses. Hillary the most corrupt politician ever? Read your history books. And look up what "corruption" actually means.
Christie is a good debater?!
Anyway, we should all clearly be voting Mousey anyway.
The result of the 2016 election is pretty forecastable. If things continue as they are, Hillary gets in pretty easily. If the US gets attacked again, some nut job like Trump or Cruz will get elected out of fear.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 16, 2015 10:29:20 GMT -5
The thing about the Syria/ISIS that conservatives aren't willing to admit is that there is no ideal solution. We can't try to just fight Assad because that means fighting Russia as well as leaving a power vacuum that ISIS will inevitably take advantage of. We can't try fighting Assad AND ISIS at the same time because that would take a ridiculous amount of resources as well as would lead to more innocent civilian deaths than even just fighting Assad. And supporting Assad while fighting ISIS isn't ideal because Assad's regime is one of the biggest things that motivates Syrians to join ISIS. You can't even do nothing because even then ISIS will still attack the western world. You have to pick the lesser of evils and while it sucks, the lesser of the evils involves supporting Assad until ISIS is a fragment of its current self.
Also, the best way to help the innocent civilians is to take them as refuges. Yes, that runs the risk of what happened in France, but the risk is very low which is why France hasn't cut off their refuge plan in response to terrorist attacks.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 16, 2015 11:55:59 GMT -5
In my opinion, it's quite simple. Berry Sanders = an unapologetic socialist and a complete nut job regarding his views on terrorism. The fact that he's actually receiving real consideration for the Presidency is emblematic of how sad our society has become with regards to understanding the consequences of socialism. You know he's not a socialist right? You know that's not how Socialism works right? This is what's really emblematic of how sad our society has become. People don't understand what words mean and then parrot their misunderstanding as fact.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 16, 2015 12:10:40 GMT -5
By his logic, MLK Jr. was a communist. Then again, that wouldn't make him different than the FBI (or was it CIA) of the 60s that literally tried to blackmail MLK Jr. into not accepting the Nobel Peace prize.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 16, 2015 14:33:12 GMT -5
AidsAidsAids taught me something. It's that words are subjective things. So what's really important to understanding people is what they mean by words, rather than focusing on how they use them
If socialism is taken to mean "the public ownership of the means of production," and we grant that there are degrees to which this ownership is institutionalized, then extend the principle of 'degrees of socialization' to individual's viewpoints, it becomes that every one of the candidates is a socialist to an extent. Yes, even Ghandi and MLK Jr. were socialist to an extent. To an extent. Sad, true. Sanders just happens to be the most socialist of the candidates.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 16, 2015 16:11:23 GMT -5
But at that point the phrase "socialist" loses all meaning, especially in the context of the western world.
Socialism is defined as the complete government takeover of a particular service/product. Communism is when you have the complete government takeover of all or nearly all systems that would otherwise be within a free market system. Capitalism is defined simply as having a system where there is product/service to customer transfer/sale that is not completely controlled by the government.
You can also have government interventions that are pro-capitalist, such as Anti-Trust intervention and just like Anti-Trust regulations Bernie's ideas have all been pro-capitalist, because they involve strengthening the free market by increasing the stability and buying power of people in middle and lower classes.
The beliefs and definitions of a candidate aren't as important as what they are going to do if elected. With 2016 the most important actions IMO are going to be replacing the soon to retire Supreme Court Justices. I know that if trump, Cruz, or Carson win the replacements will be more Scalia assholes who can't even stay consistent on their positions within 48 hours, if Jeb or Rubio win it's going to be a combination of Scalia types and Kennedy types, and if Hillary or Bernie win it's going to be Ginsberg and Kagan types. I'd rather have Supreme Court justices replaced by people who understand the concept of "Equal Protection under law" and don't claim that corporations are people rather than hacks that will spend their time arguing how anti-sodomy laws are necessary or how "separation of church and state" is really just about popular religion being above the law.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 16, 2015 16:48:57 GMT -5
But at that point the phrase "socialist" loses all meaning, especially in the context of the western world. Socialism is defined as the complete government takeover of a particular service/product. Communism is when you have the complete government takeover of all or nearly all systems that would otherwise be within a free market system. Capitalism is defined simply as having a system where there is product/service to customer transfer/sale that is not completely controlled by the government. You can also have government interventions that are pro-capitalist, such as Anti-Trust intervention and just like Anti-Trust regulations Bernie's ideas have all been pro-capitalist, because they involve strengthening the free market by increasing the stability and buying power of people in middle and lower classes. The beliefs and definitions of a candidate aren't as important as what they are going to do if elected. With 2016 the most important actions IMO are going to be replacing the soon to retire Supreme Court Justices. I know that if trump, Cruz, or Carson win the replacements will be more Scalia assholes who can't even stay consistent on their positions within 48 hours, if Jeb or Rubio win it's going to be a combination of Scalia types and Kennedy types, and if Hillary or Bernie win it's going to be Ginsberg and Kagan types. I'd rather have Supreme Court justices replaced by people who understand the concept of "Equal Protection under law" and don't claim that corporations are people rather than hacks that will spend their time arguing how anti-sodomy laws are necessary or how "separation of church and state" is really just about popular religion being above the law. Sir, what I mean by 'socialist' and what you mean by 'socialist' are two separate things. I'm using a different definition, but that doesn't mean the ideas behind them have lost meaning. There's no point quibbling about what words mean when it's the meaning that counts and not the words. Meaning isn't inherent to words. Besides, my definition goes along with how many people use it when they say "Obama is socialist" or something like that, not that that matters to our discussion. I learned it in my community college western civ course, is understood this way more often. One of the fathers of this way of thinking would be Bastiat. There are degrees of socialization a country may be in, therefore people are more or less socialist, not socialist or not. It's one of those sliding scale thingies. Otherwise, historically, a difference academic historians, not people who mean things in the popular sense, ascribe to self-described Socialists and Communists in Europe has been strategy. Communism is a more traditional Marxian bottom-up violent revolt--which is why, say, Lenin instituted a new economic plan to grow the middle class, because you can't have a proletariat revolution without the bourgeois. At least that's how the teachers used it. Stalin was described that way too, but his strategy was different in that he wanted to skip the middle part, or saw the middle part as sufficiently done, but he was still communist in the sense that he came to power through unscrupulous means, but I suppose one could argue that the system was based on having no scruples. Anyways, the end goal was the same: a classless society with the means of production publicly owned. Socialists, on the other hand, attempt to work up through the system in power. They like democracies, republics, those sorts of things. Hitler tried the a weird nationalist communism with the Beer Hall Putsch, but nobody was on board, so he changed up his strategy and became a 'national socialist'--aka, fascist. Whereas socialism and communism are normally described as class-identifying and nationally transcendent, fascism is described as an unholy union of socialism and nationalism. How are you defining 'pro-capitalist'? Favorable for the system, for the people under the system, as a change to the system of capitalism for the better, for the entrepreneurs under the system? I'd also like to see how you think that these trusts come about naturally, historically, and what the anti-trust policies would do to prevent bad things from happening. Also, what are your thoughts on Paul, who placed third in the Drudge poll last night? Nevermind Carson or Jeb, who've got like nothing in the polls :D Lastly, please describe what you mean by "Equal Protection under the law." You can't expect me to respond if I don't have a clear picture of what you're talking about~
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 16, 2015 18:02:32 GMT -5
In my opinion, it's quite simple. Bernie Sanders = an unapologetic socialist and a complete nut job regarding his views on terrorism. The fact that he's actually receiving real consideration for the Presidency is emblematic of how sad our society has become with regards to understanding the consequences of socialism. You know he's not a socialist right? You know that's not how Socialism works right? This is what's really emblematic of how sad our society has become. People don't understand what words mean and then parrot their misunderstanding as fact. Bernie is most certainly a socialist. You can debate to what degree or under what specific terminology or multiple terminologies he best fits it, but he is exactly as he proclaims himself to be... a socialist; and one who's running on a "bread and circuses" platform. Bernie promotes economic nationalism and has built his campaign upon the powerful political tool of appealing to voter resentment of others. Most of his key positions revolve around reducing our nation's economic freedoms, catapulting taxes, and exploding social programs; basically, he's trying to construct something akin to a European welfare state, but without the capitalistic freedoms necessary to support it. Sorry, but this politician's political whims will not supersede the realities of an economy; those foolish enough to buy into the BS he campaigns on will probably never comprehend the damage their support gives sanction to.
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 16, 2015 18:09:15 GMT -5
Cruz passes the eye test? The guy involved in supporting the tactic of holding the country for hostage? I assume you're referencing government shutdowns?
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 16, 2015 18:32:44 GMT -5
Lantern, I'm totally shocked that you wrote those words about Sanders INSTEAD of Trump. I don't think there is anything more telling of how sad society has become if Trump is now getting real consideration. I don't see how you can consider Cruz intelligent. Anyway you're clearly red and not blue so your summary of the politicians is very transparent from wearing red-tinted glasses. Hillary the most corrupt politician ever? Read your history books. And look up what "corruption" actually means. Christie is a good debater?! Anyway, we should all clearly be voting Mousey anyway. The result of the 2016 election is pretty forecastable. If things continue as they are, Hillary gets in pretty easily. If the US gets attacked again, some nut job like Trump or Cruz will get elected out of fear. Donald Trump is a joke; enough said. Hillary Clinton should be in jail and her ability to run for president is probably the biggest indicator of how ignorant the general public is and serves as a reminder that the mainstream media really is disinterested in holding a democratic politician accountable. Ted Cruz is pretty universally respected for his intellect; he's been described by many (friend and foe alike) as a brilliant person. Chris Christie is indeed a good debater. ...and I know nothing about Mousey's political principles or positions, so...
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 16, 2015 20:18:18 GMT -5
You know he's not a socialist right? You know that's not how Socialism works right? This is what's really emblematic of how sad our society has become. People don't understand what words mean and then parrot their misunderstanding as fact. Bernie is most certainly a socialist. You can debate to what degree or under what specific terminology or multiple terminologies he best fits it, but he is exactly as he proclaims himself to be... a socialist; and one who's running on a "bread and circuses" platform. Bernie promotes economic nationalism and has built his campaign upon the powerful political tool of appealing to voter resentment of others. Most of his key positions revolve around reducing our nation's economic freedoms, catapulting taxes, and exploding social programs; basically, he's trying to construct something akin to a European welfare state. Still not Socialism. Regulation is not Socialism. Taxation is not Socialism. Social programs are not Socialism.
|
|