| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States42558 Posts
On February 29 2016 16:23 ErectedZenith wrote: Yeah most people wants to work and be productive member of society instead of having a welfare state. A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15664 Posts
On March 01 2016 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote: You still don't think Hillary & co has tried to rig the election, so clearly we're in two totally different worlds. It would naturally follow that we don't have the same perspective on her supporters. You keep throwing around the word "rig". In what way would you say Clinton has rigged the election in a way distinct from just trying to win. How do you define rigging? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23173 Posts
It's not being a "sore loser" or anything like that it's a statement of fact. Further the "other than trying to win" confirms the last part about writing it off as Kwiz tried to suggest wasn't accurate. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15664 Posts
On March 01 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote: The trend of claiming the election is rigged every time someone’s favorite candidate loses really irritates me. It robs the voters that voted for the other candidate of agency and will, acting as is they have been unduly influenced, or lied to. Its really garbage and makes this primary process even more irritating. Yeah. I've listened to Bernie interviews, debates, keep up on this thread, news articles, the whole bit. Bernie did not convince me. I don't want to vote for Clinton, but I really don't want to vote for Sanders. I don't feel duped, I feel unimpressed. For me, Bernie isn't good enough. I don't have faith in him. I feel like the gh perspective doesn't allow for someone to be very well versed in all things Bernie while still concluding "not good enough". | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 01 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote: A strong welfare state with a functioning safety net and universal availability of healthcare and education are necessary for a hard working and productive society. You can't have one without the other. But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23173 Posts
On March 01 2016 06:56 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah. I've listened to Bernie interviews, debates, keep up on this thread, news articles, the whole bit. Bernie did not convince me. I don't want to vote for Clinton, but I really don't want to vote for Sanders. I don't feel duped, I feel unimpressed. For me, Bernie isn't good enough. I don't have faith in him. I feel like the gh perspective doesn't allow for someone to be very well versed in all things Bernie while still concluding "not good enough". No, that's a fine position for not voting for Bernie. It's not really an argument for supporting Hillary though. EDIT: This dick joke thing is pretty sad but Trump does have really tiny hands almost freakishly small. I bet they are soft too. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote: But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. Productive members of society do benefit from welfare state... | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 01 2016 07:01 OtherWorld wrote: Productive members of society do benefit from welfare state... Oh? do enlighten me. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 01 2016 06:58 ErectedZenith wrote: But that will come from productive members of the society that can't benefit from it and is barely breaking even with the government taxing them more. The point is that currently government sucks at balancing budget and allocating resources. People pay enough taxes as they do. In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation. Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. The people who are on welfare are not so desperate for money to get by that they rob me or break into my house. | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 01 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote: In business we call that a write off. Its the cost of doing business. Taking care of the poor, elderly, mentally ill and disabled is part of living in a modern nation. The overwhelming majority people on welfare work. They just can't make enough. Removing that safety net won't make them work harder, it will just lower their quality of life, put them at high risk for illness. And because they are already poor, the state will pick up that tab when they fall truly ill or commit a crime in desperation. Unless we suddenly are willing to let people die of illness because they don't have money for treatment, we end up paying in the end. Welfare provides us with more control over when and how. I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 01 2016 06:43 ErectedZenith wrote: Maybe he really did go into that conference and the people there really didn't like Hillary. Are you calling GH a liar? That's not what I was reacting to in his post. On March 01 2016 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote: You still don't think Hillary & co has tried to rig the election, so clearly we're in two totally different worlds. It would naturally follow that we don't have the same perspective on her supporters. What I know is that I asked you to substantiate your claim that she has been "rigging the election", and that you've come empty-handed. Nobody on the Democratic side gains from insulting supporters from the other primary candidate. Stop with the negative comments directed at Hillary supporters and let's focus on discussing policy and the election. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
There's a judicial exception in regards to the standing doctrine of mootness called "capable of repetition, yet evading review." This exception grants a party standing to bring an issue before a court, even when that issue is mooted (not an ongoing controversy), if the party can demonstrate that the issue's mootness hinges on an idiosyncrasy that leads to the issue being "capable of repletion, yet evading review." The two most important areas of the law where this is argued are pregnancy and elections, for obvious reasons. Why do I bring this up? Because it actually justifies GH's banter in the sense that this primary season has revealed quite a few problems with our current primary system, and it's all too easy to wave them away given the high stakes of political dialogue during the lead-up to an election. Is it fair to characterize Hillary's actions as "rigging?" Ehh, I don't think so; if she were truly able to "rig" the system, Sanders would never have even gotten as far as he has. Nevertheless, now is as good a time as any to remind folks that political parties have given us ample reason to not trust them with handling the primary process in a democratically equitable manner. This applies to both parties in equal force. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 01 2016 07:05 ErectedZenith wrote: I think the current tax rate is good enough to do all of that, no needs to raise that further. Its all about carefully allocating the taxes. Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 01 2016 07:06 Plansix wrote: Unless you make millions, no one is going to do so. The only tax hikes on the table right now is on money that none of us will every earn. Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 01 2016 07:09 ErectedZenith wrote: Trump is looking to restructuring the subsidies. Trump is also looking to bang his daughter and is very worried about his freakishly small baby hands. So I don't really take his tax cuts based on voodoo magic seriously. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23173 Posts
It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 01 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote: This is seeming to hinge on a misunderstanding of what the word "rig" means. It does not mean "make it impossible for an undesirable outcome". It means "to manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" I didn't respond to Kwiz's request because there's already been ample evidence of it happening posted and even Ticklish has admitted the DNC (ran by a former Hillary co-chair for her 08 campaign) manipulated the process and hid behind dishonesty as to the reasons (even if he comes to the conclusion that it's acceptable). What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23173 Posts
On March 01 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote: What did Hillary "manipulate dishonestly for personal gain" with regards to how this election has been proceeding? The debate process for one. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Please use more details, rather than leave us all to guess exactly what you are talking about. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs Cure
FEL
OSC
RSL Revival
FEL
FEL
CSO Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
