Yeah except he had no plans to join in, just stroke his chin as he rests upon his high throne of a polisci major. John Oliver isn't a meme? The only meme is that anime profile picture level trump meme video spook posted.
Awh, did I get you all frustrated baby? Sorry.. But as soon as you started rambling on about Fox News, I flipped the switch on you boy. Can't argue with someone who watches 15 second NowThis Politics, AJ+ and Buzzfeed and expect to get anything out of this. The fact that you keep calling me out on my degree doesn't make me want to argue with you any more than I have. I make $3500 a month working for the local government in the recreations department while also working for logistics for a trucking company. I grind it out 65+ hours a week and barely make jackshit. If you want to raise taxes to pay for healthcare or so that billy bob can get an art degree at Arizona State Party University, you are mistaken my friend. I've made up my mind and i'm sticking to it, I don't need no liberal chump to be all over my business because I won't talk to him about the latest Donald Trump video by Buzzfeed. If you want to talk about hegemony, the breakdown of nation-states or about Lenin than I'm all game, but quit hopping on my nuts because you can't tolerate a conservative who won't stand for your bullshit.
I'm a firm believer in Slovoj Zizek's "Don't Act, Just Think" in that the reasonings behind Bernie aren't revolutionary. It's a temporary fix to the problem. You think that fixing the wage and putting everyone through school is the easy way to make things better. But it isn't. You're driving up costs for businesses and devaluing everyone else's degrees. Pretty soon you'll need a masters to get an entry level job. If you really believe that people are somehow systematically oppressed, then you are watching too much CNN. If you are hungry and not where you want to be in life, chances are it's NOT because your great great great great grandfather was a slave. If you believe the police are beating you up in the street and out to murder you, you are are also mistaken. It's a small percentage of bad apples, yet no one bats an eye when police are also being targeted in retaliation. The government is ineffective. Yep, you heard it from a local city employee of 3+ years. It pays my bills. I don't do anything and neither do my coworkers. I'm milking tax payer dollars and I know it. The national government? Well it's a joke at this point. Everyone and their mom knows that transnational corporations own the world. The government is just a standing entity along with all the global institutions like the UN. All jokes to make it seem like the power is still in the hands of the people. So if you ask me... does it really matter if it's Hillary or Trump. The shifts in power have already started and the wheels aren't slowing down. Bernie is just dragging out our sentence on death row. You want to make everything easier for people? Why should I bother working 65+ hours a week to pay for housing and school when everyone can get it for free. Why do I bother trying to make something out of myself if I know someone else will be able to pick up my slack? Sorry if I seem like I'm selfish and in it for myself, but I found that the American dream is still possible in what's left of this fucked up world. I'm just in it for myself and don't tell me that I should be somehow compassionate and share my hard earned wealth with others. That's why I don't agree with Bernie, and believe that if he sticks with his statements, he'd be the most ineffective president in history. Yes, the ideas sound great on paper. But no.
I'm a firm believer in Slovoj Zizek's "Don't Act, Just Think" in that the reasonings behind Bernie aren't revolutionary. It's a temporary fix to the problem. You think that fixing the wage and putting everyone through school is the easy way to make things better. But it isn't. You're driving up costs for businesses and devaluing everyone else's degrees. Pretty soon you'll need a masters to get an entry level job. They aren't revolutionary, they're progressive. You're argument after is a slippery slope argument. Degrees aren't going to become easier to get, just more accessible to poor people. All in all, I'm still a firm believer in capitalism and the system that we have in place. If you really believe that people are somehow systematically oppressed, then you are watching too much CNN. If you are hungry and not where you want to be in life, chances are it's NOT because your great great great great grandfather was a slave. If you believe the police are beating you up in the street and out to murder you, you are are also mistaken. It's a small percentage of bad apples, yet no one bats an eye when police are also being targeted in retaliation. I agree, CNN sucks major dick. However, just because systematic oppression doesn't exist where you live, you realize that it may occur elsewhere right? Look at Ferguson. After the whole hands down don't shoot incident, they found out that Michael Brown did not have his hands up; however, they did find that the police were systematically more eager to catch black people. I also think you're wrong in thinking no one cares about cops? The only reason there has been so much hate recently, is that bad cops are making them all look bad. People know there are also good ones though, just sad that bad ones don't get any punishment for their wrong doings. Why do I follow conservative ideas? Because I've seen it happen away from my computer screen. Because my family friend was killed in San Beredino, CA shooting while my own dad's office was next door at the California State Highway Patrol headquarters looking for take out the assailant. Because I worked my way through college and haven't racked up student loans and have been working since I was 16. While the San Bernardino attack was a tragedy, I fail to see how being conservative or liberal or anything has anything to do with it. Props to being able to pay your own way through university, that's respectable. Not everyone is in a position to do so. Sorry if I seem like I'm selfish and in it for myself, but I found that the American dream is still possible and that there's no easy shortcuts or way out. That's why I don't agree with Bernie, and believe that if he sticks with his statements, he'd be the most ineffective president in history. Yes, the ideas sound great on paper. Again, you make it sound like Bernie's going to start throwing out master degrees like free t-shirts, he's just trying to make the system more viable for the lower income families. Which specific ideas do you think will make him the most ineffective president? Is it only the subsidizing of public universities and the raising of minimum wage?
If you are so 100% sure, is there any reason to discuss this at all :/ Just because the video is only ~ 20 mins long doesn't automatically deny it's validity. Honestly I feel like I've been pretty civil and haven't been hopping on any nuts at all.
If you knew Bernie's policy, you'd know your taxes would not change unless you make over 250k, so about 6 times as much as you make. You're totally against your own interests. You think raising taxes on individuals making more than 250k would cause you to lose money? You're making out the wrong people as the bad guys here. Why would you assume I'm someone who just "watches 15 second NowThis Politics, AJ+ and Buzzfeed"? I was "all over your business" because you boasted about being a polisci major yet you've presented no sources or evidence to substantiate anything you've said thus far, or even stated whom you're supporting even when you're the one who started the whole conversation! So you don't believe in systemic oppression or institutionalization because CNN? What? I think that view is misguided. You don't think privilege exists? Look, just the other day a rich white boy from stanford raped a girl behind a dumpster, and got SIX MONTHS. I've heard your same spiel before, "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and work hard, so everyone should be able to follow suit, fuck em if they can't, they're lazy deadbeats, there is no way I had any sort of advantage, ever." Fine, be like that, I just don't think you're seeing the big picture. We can go back and forth about economics forever, but on social issues I find the right wing so incredibly revolting there is no way I could ever vote for them. Take the Canadian conservative party, actual fiscal conservatism. If you wanna be a greedy bastard, fine, but don't tell people who they can marry or what bathroom they should be using, or what women should do with their bodies. And I'd think its wrong to vote for a party that openly tries to do that just to (maybe) put a couple extra bucks in your pocket. I have no idea if you're religious, but I do find it ironic that the Conservative party is basically the Christian party yet they don't want to help poor people and just want more money for themselves. (hm... WWJD? Bernie's a jew... hm...) And don't forget, it was the CONSERVATIVE party that put us at war, nothing fiscally conservative about that. I find it hypocritical to have been for the war, but then flip out over welfare or helping poor people, it costs a sliver of what our military-industrial complex does..
i'm sorry, but what? if what he is stating is bullshit then disprove him with facts /end first of all, ^ irony. How can you slam him for something and basically do the exact same thing keep it civilised You wanted a political debate but I see more relevant content with actual facts coming from everyone else in this thread. Your first post goes into detail about your political ideology but it needs explanations in certain areas and contains some inaccuracies (or can you explain please). Even @myinputlogin already quoted some of it back in page 1. Social democracy refers to sets of policies that promote economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism... So I don't really understand where this even comes from? Also, I don't even understand how "socialism is going to make people lazy" is an argument, any research behind this? the argument sounds very similar to the whole shazzam with UKIP vs. immigrants claiming benefits. "Big corporations are now more powerful than small nation states, .... it (globalisation) destroys the freedoms granted by nation states". In my opinion, the loss of freedoms granted by nation states is a result of your beloved anglo-saxon capitalism and not directly the result of globalisation. Capitalism without checks and regulation encourages the promotion of corporatist interests, increasing autonomy that allows corporate giants to shape the political policies of countries (lobbying is a good example of this). (which is why I support campaign finance reform, I recommend reading into Lawrence Lessig for more information). Would this happen in a economy with more barriers to entry? more regulation? and more social intervention? - on paper it wouldn't happen in a Social Market Economy. Also many classical liberals such as Keynes view globalisation as the cause of increase growth of economic interdependence which in turn promotes peace. Can you go into more detail on how globalisation destroys the freedom of nation states? In my opinion less globalisation's fault and more greed. I agree that Bernie is probably not going to get the nomination, but that doesn't mean his political ideology is wrong. So it is not really a pointless argument, since we are talking about political theory? Also "What have you done that leads me to believe that you will enact real changes." <-- to me, this statement just seemed plain ignorant. Bernie has an extremely impressive history (voting record is tight!), and being an independent isn't easy. Most of this has been covered by @myinputlogin which I will leave here, (incase you missed it): All of Europe has a free or very cheap subsidised college education and free healthcare and multiple countries (dependant on their economic plans) have a growing middle class and low income inequality with positive GDP growth, so not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. There are various models of government, all with disadvantages and their advantages, but as social democracy is concerned, it exists and works in various forms in some european countries (with capitalist market structures) for example: Germany and various Nordic countries. Undergraduate degrees are basically free in Scotland and Germany, and my father and his generation got PAID to go to university at first rate universities. Access to healthcare not being a human right? why not? In my opinion, it should be available to everyone. A more educated population and good health. The amount some families in America have to dish out for College is unbelievable, and I don't believe every single child that isn't born into a good financial situation should have to work like you did from 16 to afford to go to College (p.s. kudos to you @Legend). In London, I have to pay around 13,000 dollars a year for tuition (which is the most in europe and recently raised, but still not even close to america) but almost anyone that desires to go to college has the opportunity because the government will guarantee a loan (to all european students) which includes full tuition payment for our whole degree (plus living fees - around $7000 a year) which we then have to pay back via a payback scheme (10% is taken off our pay checks when we are making over 30,000+ a year until fully paid back). Again, this is more transparent in America, where there is less regulation and more entrepreneurship (Anglo-Saxon model of Capitalism). In countries with more regulation and checks and balances, this is not really the case at all. (Look at Germany). I wouldn't say that we are systematically oppressed, but our world is far from perfect. There are many problems, ranging from ones limited to the United States and global problems. If everyone is looking out for their best interests, then who is going to look out for the social ones? Issues ranging from private prisons, pharmaceutical companies, big corporations, lack of a cheap public education system, lack of a social healthcare system, net neutrality, global warming, the 2009 financial crash, and lack of wealth distribution. Just because you don't experience these issues on a daily basis doesn't mean other American's don't. Sander's is the only candidate running for potus that actually acknowledges and promises to do something about all of these issues. Your talking points against Sanders don't even seem to be based off his actual policy or social democracy. If this thread is called political theory, we should be discussing sanders/europe's "social democracy" vs. (anglo-saxon) laissez-faire free market capitalism.
And ffs, how can you be conservative and then say all this stuff about how big businesses are out of control? The Republican party is very openly FOR big business, thats very well known and not hidden really. Bernie is staunchly against big business becoming too powerful, you don't even agree with that? To me it just seems that conservatives get too hung up on the whole tax/wealth redistribution thing and don't even think about social issues, environment or big businesses fucking over everyone regardless of political allegiance. So you're a fulltime student, pay for all your expenses, work a 65+ hour per week job, and find time to play maplestory. As a fellow undergrad student, either your uni is easy as shit, or you're full of shit.
I'm kind of bowing out of this thread because it's gotten a bit much and much more confrontational than I would want to be involved in. However, I do just want to point out to you and others two things (which I'm sure you realized at least one of them). First, just because the poster is a conservative does not mean they subscribe to every single belief, such as that regarding big businesses. So I don't think it's fair for one to be bashed for not believing every single thing a conservative typically would. Also, conservative =/= Republican. While typically republicans are conservatives, I consider myself a conservative, NOT a Republican. If a Democrat or Independent or Green Party or etc. was more aligned with my personal beliefs, then I would vote for them. I don't simply vote the column. This has been especially true in local elections where sometimes the Democrat has been the better candidate and I have voted for them. While I think you are aware there is a difference @JadenSmith, I primarily posted this to educate others so a false link wouldn't be made in people's minds. The same holds true regarding liberals =/= Democrats
It is just weird , because Trump is FOR big businesses and less social intervention. He wants to reduce corporation tax, so transnational companies will be able to perform within US borders. One of his main arguments is that he will be able to make us competitive (towards China). So being FOR Trump and AGAINST big businesses is pretty contradictory in my opinion. Because ultimately big businesses is what he stands for. But one could have other reasons for wanting to vote Trump I guess.
I think raising our bottom line will be good for the country in the long run, however it's met with short term problems and other cons as well. We live in a social democracy (feels more like a socialist one at the moment), but for that reason I think Bernie Sanders would be the most correct choice, though maybe not the most qualified. I don't really have any opinions, but out of the three most commonly talked about presidential candidates, I don't think any of the candidates are qualified for the job, so if I were to vote, I'd vote for the least evil, which in my opinion is Bernie Sanders. I truly do think some people are really down on their luck and raising the bottom line and social reform programs do help, for those who actually accept it. I don't know. I've seen and experienced both ends of the financial spectrum in the US, so I hope my opinion comes with some kind of weight.
Hi OP, I'm Canadian so I obviously cannot vote in the US elections but I'm just curious what your reasoning is for voting for Donald Trump? (I'm assuming you're voting for the Republican candidate). From what I see, it's because you agree with his economic ideals. My question to you is, do you also agree with his social/political policies? (E.g. ban Muslims, build a yuge wall, China China x10) I'm only asking because I genuinely have not met a Trump supporter and I cannot see where his appeal/ voter base is coming from. Please enlighten me OP (or other Trump supporters)
You kind of hit the head on the voter appeal. America is a social democracy, but Trump's policies are that of a capitalistic society. The OP talks about social policies in his opening post and how he does not believe in them, and that's where his voter appeal comes from. To elaborate more, from an economics stand point, a social democracy is hard to make sense of... at least in America, where it's commonly identified as a capitalistic society. For example, the more poor someone is, the more benefits they receive. Food stamps, cheaper and more premium health insurance, subsidized utilities and rent, etc. As you make more money, more things are taken away from you and you have to pay more to retain that life. Basically, making 20k/year actually out benefits making 30k/year. At least that's what I got out of it. edit: Not a Trump supporter, but as a conservative, I get his point of view. As stated before, I don't think any of the front runners for presidency are qualified.
@Hiroku The rich republicans tend to want smaller government (less taxes and less social services). A lot of them don't like social programs, and think why should I pay for someone else's medical bills? I'm not the one sick. As for the poorer trump supporters, they tend to believe that since Trump is a successful businessman, that he will be able to improve their standards of living. One other thing I heard is that they're just racist. There's a lot of talk radio shows where they just say things like immigrants are ruining America. Believing these things, the things Trump says like building a wall or w/e makes sense to them as they are somehow "protecting" America.
No, just personal experiences from when I did make that much. In my area, 30k is about the time you lose affordable housing qualifications, which can save upwards of 15k a year. You also lose access to better and cheaper health insurance. Making 15k, qualifying for food stamps is probably better than 20k too lol. The city and surrounding areas I live in might be considered an outlier due to the ridiculous rent prices. Losing affording housing is probably worth upwards of 15k a year. It's pretty insane. There have been several news segments about how Trump capitalizes on fear mongering as well. The whole thing about ISIS, refugees, cartels, etc. This is where his "racism" and "protection" speeches come from, to put more into context. He comes across too much as generalizing to make me feel like he has good intentions though.
Thanks for the clarification/ different perspectives @SDVX @myinputlogin! I'm still a bit confused. Maybe the Canadian media's portrayal of Donald Trump is lacking/biased or just completely unfair (?). Let's suppose his business acumen is as great as he says it is, I still cannot fathom how someone would support or align themselves with his views of outright banning an entire religious group or ethnic group among other questionable things. The Canadian media literally trolls his "policies" (or lack thereof) with his non-sensical ramblings. Just recently, an interview of Donald Trump played where he said a judge in California should recuse himself in the case against Trump University because he is Mexican when the judge was born in Indiana. When the reporter asked Trump if he what he said was the embodiment of racism, Trump replied with "I'm going to build a huge wall." I know Canadian politics is not the best (Stephen Harper rip) but I can't ever see the blatant disregard for civility Donald Trump has displayed through out this campaign process, but then again, like I said--maybe the media is biased against him. In hindsight, I do self-identify as conservative (in Canada) but those views would probably be considered left-leaning in America lol. Our taxes are pretty high compared to those of our US counterparts.
@Hiroku I think it's on the basis of fear mongering. He takes advantage of negative media portrayals of those ethnicities and religions. ISIS, Mexican cartels + war on drugs, etc. When he was called out regarding his bigotry moves, he manipulated the wording from <race here> to <offender>, kind of putting words in his opponents mouth, saying that he's not going for the race, but rather the offenders in general. He's quick to change his wording and his arguments are at his convenience from what I have seen. Many people don't look into the context and probably assume that he's winning the argument. Maybe Trump has gotten a biased and negative view outside America, but that's because the media thrives on this kind of drama.
I don't know what the actual quote Donald Trump said was. However, the basis behind Trump's statement was not that the judge himself was Mexican, but that he was a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the organization. So naturally, Trump (like I'm sure most of us would as defendants in a similar case) feels that he won't get a fair trial from the judge because of his personal views about "building a wall" and the affiliations the judge has. It's also important to note the judge mentioned his ties to the organization in his judicial questionnaire that was used to determine who was assigned to the Trump case. So again, to answer your question, did Trump say something that went overboard and went too far? Probably. Did the news media selectively quote him and make it a big thing to make him look even worse to people? Probably. I'm not saying one side is more right or wrong than the other, but I am saying that if you have questions about whether what you're hearing on the news is true, take a few minutes and look into it. It helps to make you more informed and can sometimes be interesting reading
