|
Trump is responsible for cancer now? Why is the government responsible for your healthcare? Every time you involve the government, things get MORE inefficient and costly, not less. Most of these regulations are to push out smaller providers and preserve monopolies, not to protect or care for you.
|
|
|
|
Republicans don't create domestic terorirsm, and Democrats don't create equitable healthcare. Lets relax with the semantics and actually think for a second.
And yet Republicans create jobs and Democrats create Mobs, thats OK right, hypocrite... There also hasn't been 275 mass shootings this year, you're using a source that is using a defination of 'mass shooting' that isn't close to what the FBI (or other places) use. Check out this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Differing_sourcesDon't think by what I'm saying that I think that mass shootings are okay, but inflating your numbers to attempt to make a point is horrid enough in and of itself. Mass shootings and mass killings are 2 different things. I am not exaggerating shit As a person living in a country with an average # of mass shootings annually of approx 0% I consider a shooting incident where 4 or more people are injured or killed ABSOLUTELY counts as a mass shooting as does a number of other sources... Saying I am horrid by inflating my numbers is wrong, I have the statistics to back up my claim, even though the right wing doesn't understand what facts are! You might want to check out the PER-CAPITA gun homicides by country. You would be surprised. The fact that your homicide rate by firearms is approx 8 times that of Canada isn't much of a surprise to me, I can see why it would surprise you though! Somehow you guys can rationalize the argument that more guns means more safety when the facts clearly state the EXACT opposite! Yeah, well we also have like, what 10 times the population, are much more diverse culturally and otherwise, and the little fact that we border a country with some of the highest homicide rates on Earth. I am sure none of those things matter in this equation  |
|
|
|
Republicans don't create domestic terorirsm, and Democrats don't create equitable healthcare. Lets relax with the semantics and actually think for a second.
And yet Republicans create jobs and Democrats create Mobs, thats OK right, hypocrite... There also hasn't been 275 mass shootings this year, you're using a source that is using a defination of 'mass shooting' that isn't close to what the FBI (or other places) use. Check out this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Differing_sourcesDon't think by what I'm saying that I think that mass shootings are okay, but inflating your numbers to attempt to make a point is horrid enough in and of itself. Mass shootings and mass killings are 2 different things. I am not exaggerating shit As a person living in a country with an average # of mass shootings annually of approx 0% I consider a shooting incident where 4 or more people are injured or killed ABSOLUTELY counts as a mass shooting as does a number of other sources... Saying I am horrid by inflating my numbers is wrong, I have the statistics to back up my claim, even though the right wing doesn't understand what facts are! You might want to check out the PER-CAPITA gun homicides by country. You would be surprised. |
|
|
|
Did Bernie say violent things? (not trying to be a smartass here - I'm genuinely not sure, haven't heard the man since ~2016 I think and he was fiery but not violent as I recall)
Trump likes to be portrayed as a tough guy. He says a lot of stupid shit that would not be acceptable in a polite company. There is way to escape that, if he's not on traditional media then he's on Twitter making shit up about rapists and terrorists invading the country and he has a list of perceived enemies whom he repeatedly attacks on a personal level. Rhetoric matters a lot when it comes from such a position of power.
He could stop at any time if he doesn't like the optics of it. The bar is set very very low for him. Look how everyone media is fawning when he reads a few sentences off a teleprompter. But he doesn't want that.
In polite company, what are you a Victorian housemaid? People voted for him because he says things that PC culture forbids, things that resonate with the majority of people. Part of that is not kissing everyone's ass. Good leaders aren't fucking pansys, they are often forceful and say things like they are, even if some people might be upset by that reality. What exactly is he making up, please tell me. Your little out of context snippits don't cut it. Trump and his supporters have been nonstop targets since 2016 over and over again by unhinged leftists, Democrats have been openly calling for harassment and incivility, over the course of years... but yep all Trump's fault cause he says things you think are naughty. If you say something to some one and they freak out and physically attack you for it, is it their fault for attacking you or your fault for upsetting them? I would love to hear your answer. |
|
|
|
Republicans create domestic terrorists, Democrats create equitable healthcare...
3 officers shot...
Shooter in custody...
Preliminary reports are he had an AR-15 and multiple hand guns. 12 people shot inc 3 officers with 8 casualties. First reports are that 60-100 people could have been inside.
275 mass shootings in the US this year, you fucking retards need to give up your obsession with things that are designed to ONLY kill humans... Americans in general are not smart enough to have assault rifles in the hands of the general public LOL. Oh come on, you again trying to do ALL OF THIS. Republicans don't create domestic terorirsm, and Democrats don't create equitable healthcare. Lets relax with the semantics and actually think for a second. There also hasn't been 275 mass shootings this year, you're using a source that is using a defination of 'mass shooting' that isn't close to what the FBI (or other places) use. Check out this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Differing_sourcesDon't think by what I'm saying that I think that mass shootings are okay, but inflating your numbers to attempt to make a point is horrid enough in and of itself. You don't get it. Facts are irrelevant now. Only emotions are relevant. |
|
|
|
The market price signalling will still be corrupted, and inflation will still be a factor because the most in-demand goods will be less available and have to rise in price to meet demand. Why are you assuming that the production won't rise? Automation/Technology is already helping us to overproduce. We are closer to the post-scarcity era than you think. Like even if Apple wanted to give out 8 billion iPhones for free they could be produced in this day and age. We aren't living in the 50s. Technology is there and is improving constantly. Also, Laws of economics aren't set in stone like laws of nature. People like you need to understand that. Why do you assume that governments will print out money to pay for UBI? That's not the case. The idea of UBI is to shift the money from one class to another, So inflation isn't an issue with UBI. You might want to look up "the tragedy of the commons". You throw out terms like "tragedy of the commons" but fail to cite sources where this was actually proved... Yes, you won't tell me. How convenient you can't even clearly and simply define your premise and rely on some video to think for you. Alright, let's start with Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs Link: https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/32/2/155/4098285Since you are going to accept whatever I say as truth. The trails done in Canada in the 1970s showed that less than 1% of the participants left their work. Those who left their jobs were moms who left work for taking care of their newborns. Also, participants reduced their work hours by less than 10% on average and those who did, they spent their time looking for new jobs or going back to school to learn new skills. I mean what more can you ask? These are very simple economics concepts that are well accepted, and considered laws based on past economic behavior. If you give people things they do not have to work for, those things are consumed more, but the actual value of the money becomes debased because they produced nothing to get those things. Money does not just represent work it represents capital. Capital (ie things) are not infinite and regardless of how much you automate this will not change. Resources are finite. Market price signaling is the ONLY THING that is giving an accurate signal to the people who produce those things, what the fair market value of their products are. When you hand out free money, it means these resources are consumed, but these people paid no cost for it, and the true market prices are corrupted by this influx. This long term results in shortages and supply problems. These are all well known and accepted economic concepts. Postmodernism is not an acceptable substitute. I mentioned tragedy of the commons because it is a general concept that people don't appreciate or take care of collective possession as well as they do their own. IE if they don't pay the cost to gain the thing then they are less likely to appreciate or care for it. There is nothing to disprove here, just an idea you might benefit from examining critically because this seems to be a foreign concept to you. BTW, Canada still operates under Capitalism. "debunking" a claim I did not make is not a premise. A premise is a claim, or truth, you hold to be true. Try making a claim you feel to be true and introduce evidence to support it. This is not debate, this is you putting up a straw man no one asked for, beating him with a stick, and declaring victory. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the perfect example that UBI is just re-branded Socialism. See this is the issue here, You think that people will get paid by a "state" which isn't true. People will most likely get "paid" from the people who own the means of production. I mean as long as people can own the mean of production and produce whatever they want, free from "state" intervention you can't call it socialism. It is capitalism of sorts but the "profit" being the wellbeing of the society. Please do explain specifically what "Has been proved wrong countless times". The video gives clear examples of countries where the UBI was tested, again I won't tell you where but feel free to watch it for yourself. I have done a LOT of research on UBI and economics in general and it will have destructive effects long term if not immediately after implementation due to the basic laws of economics and psychology of human motivation mentioned above. The results beg to differ... Just watch the video already man... The points you have touched are all summed up in there. Just watch it... It doesn't matter who pays them. The market price signaling will still be corrupted, and inflation will still be a factor because the most in demand goods will be less available and have to rise in price to meet demand. You might want to look up "the tragedy of the commons". Yes, you won't tell me. How convenient you can't even clearly and simply define your premise and rely on some video to think for you. What results? You haven't refuted a single one of my points successfully. Furthermore you haven't even stated your own points! |
|
|
|
Tbh, I don't think this matters much politically, despite all the hot air. This might swing a few conservative moderates and undecideds, but Trump's base is Trump's base. They do not perceive the rhetorical environment the President has fostered, and don't understand the constant attacks on Trump from liberal media. So any political coin gained is useless to spend.
What about the rhetoric by the likes of Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and others? Sometimes explicitly calling for violence and in others implicitly calling for violence. How do you feel about liberal Mayors ordering police to stand down for political purposes, resulting in danger to many innocent lives? What about either condoning or ignoring violence when it happens? All that is okay, right? The double standard of the left is sickening and removes their credibility. Frankly many on the left with these double standard are outright bad people. what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about what about What about not sending bombs to them and not blaming them for getting bombs in the mail. That would be a good start. If any of those people actually called for violence (tenuous assertion at best) then they deserve to be criticized. Just as Trump deserves to be criticized for his incessant villainization of anyone who doesn't praise him. Tell me, when did Trump call for violence? You talk about rhetoric, but it was all there before Trump got into office, except hes not a pansy and fought back against those attacking him. He didn't foster this environment, it was IMPOSED upon him, and anyone else who supports him in public. Trump supporters have been getting attacked since before 2016, now the left is crying about the hostile environment after two years of nonstop violence against conservatives any time they organize in groups, or even alone. What about Scalise? Rand Paul? ANTIFA? Tell me more about how the left is peaceful and innocent and Trump started this. If the right is responsible for unhinged people on the right then the left has A SHITLOAD of unhinged people being violent over the past 2 years to account for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcmUur019LY |
|
|
|
The suspect has been arrested. Try to keep up. Do you have at least an updated conspiracy theory? I see, because it was filmed last night all of his arguments are automatically invalid. Good point. |
|
|
|
Lol, Why waste my energy on explaining something which has been "perfectly" explained in a short video??? I am here to point you in the right direction, not to convince you that UBI is good. How can i convince you that something is "Good" when it hasn't been even defined properly. Each person has their own idea about what "UBI" should be. I mean, to you giving out free money may be considered "UBI" but to me providing someone with free training can be considered UBI too. One of the points which the "cartoons" point out. Also, Its just a single video, Not "Shotgunning links" at you in any way. I mean if you are really interested in changing your mind or giving "UBI" a chance, You wouldn't mind doing a bit of research or would you? I will not spoon-feed you the information you require If that's what you are looking for, I am not your guy.
UBI is simply just rebranded Socialism/Communism. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Don't ever forget it. "Oh has it been proven? Please Source."  P.S I don't mind reading articles or watching videos So feel free to link them. "...providing someone with free training can be considered UBI too." Thanks for the perfect example that UBI is just re-branded Socialism. Dude, its like, all post modern and stuff man, and we can totally just each have our own definitions for words man. Please do explain specifically what "Has been proved wrong countless times". I literally don't even know what your premise is other than "UBI GOOD". Asking you to define your terms is not demanding to be spoon fed. I have done a LOT of research on UBI and economics in general and it will have destructive effects long term if not immediately after implementation due to the basic laws of economics and psychology of human motivation mentioned above. |
|
|
|
Cartoons...always impressive. Pick a premise and support it with sources. Shotgunning links at me is not a debate. if you can't explain your concepts in simple language, what makes you think you are going to convince anyone else? |
|
|
|
And you've claimed that the left is running in wild numbers to the right, why don't we bet on the republicans keeping control of the house? Or don't you believe what you say?? Being refractory is not becoming or really that clever. I never made a specific claim about it, only challenged your hubris by levying a wager. |
|
|
|
Hydrogen's liquid state requires super cooling. Maybe if you went to science class once, you'd know this.  nice save. /s |
|
|
|
There's a certain individual who pretends he's a victim, when in reality;
How about we start talking about the guy that incited the right? Trump's a symptom of the propaganda machine, but the buck does stop with the President, in my opinion.
That is quite an interesting projection considering this whole time I was pointing out the whole point of this was the cast the left as victims to elicit sympathy right before midterms. Also a lot of them have prosecutions coming. They are losing power and are desperate. If that is your argument, who is responsible for inciting the shooting at the Republican baseball game a while back where Steve Scalise was shot? What about the people who incited a man to beat Rand Paul so badly he had to be hospitalized? Why is the left not responsible for their own rhetoric in the same way you are claiming the right should be? |
|
|
|
So you don't really believe what you say? Nut up and support your words with actions. Put your money where your mouth is.
There is a difference between what I think will happen and what I am willing to wager will happen... Sometimes I think the Washington Generals will finally pull out a win but I wouldn't wager on it!!!!!!! 30 or I'll pass thanks. I get it, you don't really believe what you say. Oh horse shit, it's an unpredictable future event. Just because I won't bet you on it doesn't mean I don't think it will happen, odds matter. Give me 2 to 1 odds and I will take the 35 seat bet!!! Hey, you are the one that made the statement not me. All I did was call your bluff and put money down. I won't give you 2 to 1 odds, but I will raise it to 0.02 if you like |
|
|
|
If you are going to criticize my points at least address the correct scientific effect. Shooting tanks doesn't dismiss anything I said. Also the fact that you think liquid fuel tanks will explode when shot tells me you get most of your "scientific knowledge" from movies and TV. Try watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLUYou're just highlighting your ignorance. It's not liquid, it's compressed gas.It's not liquid, it's compressed gas.It's not liquid, it's compressed gas.It's not liquid, it's compressed gas. Uh huh. You don't know that elements have different states of matter, and that compressed gases such as hydrogen and LPG form into a liquid but I need to go back to 8th grade science. Only an idiot would think LPG = hydrogen. That's like saying "COPPER IS IDENTICAL TO IRON IN EVERY WAY".
It's two entirely separate chemicals.
===
Yall gotta go back to 8th grade chemistry.
Literally no one said that they are the same in every way. However they are both compressed fuels subject to the explosive atomization effect I previously described. Keep digging that hole. You are SOOOOO CLOOOSE. |
|
|
|
I said the results helped Democrats, not that this man purposely helped them. I also clearly explained how this benefits them, and does not at all benefit conservatives, of which this man supposedly is.
Still can't let go of your cockamamie plot? The man is a deluded conspiracy theorist, much like yourself and the cast of Fox News, except he was dumb enough to act on it. The list of addressees is a dead giveaway: Most of the recipients are targets of right-wing rhetoric but largely irrelevant to Democrats. No sane person on the left gives a shit about Wasserman-Shultz or Holder or even Clinton so why would they set up such a lame conspiracy to send fake bombs to some has-beens who are not part of midterms in any way?
Since then more packages have been found - addressed to Robert de Niro, Joe Biden, Corey Booker... the list sounds like it was taken from Sean Hanity's or Rush Limbaugh's show or Trump's rallies. It never ceases to amaze me how much people think life is like movie scripts. The world is not as it presents itself. After a while, the media saturates your brain to the point that scripts seem more real than reality does. Nothing in life is ever this clearly spelled out from A to Z, especially in politics. This is a hand crafted tale designed to serve a specific purpose.
It never ceases to amaze me how tenuous the grasp of reality and facts is among some seemingly otherwise smart people when it comes to challenging their political or religious beliefs. Give it up. It's over. Find the next bogeyman. I suggest THE CARAVAN. Why? Because you berate me and attack my character? So far none of you have bothered to even attempt to refute any of the points I made, you simply just tell me what you believe, what some one told you, or what you saw on TV. This is not a debate is is a very transparent attempt to shame people from having dissenting views, much like this whole bombing hoax to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
