ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
The people of CA deserve this. They elected them.

"\Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg has proposed a "right to housing" as the California homeless crisis continues to grow more severe.

The state has around 161,000 people struggling with homelessness, and the state’s leadership is coming up short with answers. As the most populous state, California has the highest number of homeless people, according to government statistics: The state also boasts the fourth-highest rate of homeless per capita in the U.S.

Steinberg announced a plan Wednesday, during his State of the City address, that he believes will help his city and the state at large to better tackle the crisis: A "right to housing" along with an "obligation" for homeless people to accept shelter when offered."
They refuse to see the problem for what it really is. The VAST majority of those tent cities are populated by drug addicts who CHOOSE to be there. These aren’t people down on their luck, looking for housing. They are drug addicted grifters. They are there because the system and government in those cities allow and support it. If you put them in housing, they will destroy the housing, they forced hotels into taking in some of these derelicts during Covid last year and they destroyed the rooms. These cities condone their behavior and ignore the root of the problem.
 
211121659_3092551384296089_7882882696255470513_n.jpg
So will I get the same warning if Antifa or BLM folks start pushing their views at me? Just askin’
 
Progressives: let's be like Europe

Places in europe:



Progressives: no I meant other stuff
I can see that. If they keep pushing these divisive ideologies and continue denigrating the whites, they are only hurting opportunities that blacks and POC might have for jobs and advancement. The best white ally a minority can have is a business owner who will offer minorities jobs and opportunities for advancement. Not these Antifa ass clowns out in the streets destroying the businesses that would provide those opportunities.
 
The sun is racist, confirmed. Not to mention at the same time...ppl like Ed here, who lives in Massachusetts, wants to tell southerners in places like Louisiana they're being selfish and shouldn't turn their thermostats down in the summer bc of the climate. But now, why not, they just can't resist tying yet something else to race.

They must be really concerned about losing a % of this demographic

 
The sun is racist, confirmed. Not to mention at the same time...ppl like Ed here, who lives in Massachusetts, wants to tell southerners in places like Louisiana they're being selfish and shouldn't turn their thermostats down in the summer bc of the climate. But now, why not, they just can't resist tying yet something else to race.

They must be really concerned about losing a % of this demographic


Face palm
 
True.
BTW, his (assuming) argument that "the gap between the rich and the poor grew" is a naive, childish, almost 4th grade position. And it tells us that he (assuming) is either extremely dishonest, or has no clue regarding finances, or even math.

Let's use some basic math to illustrate WHY the gap grows under any administration and why it is a good thing.
1) Let's say ... two people decided to invest some money. For simplicity, let's say one person invested 1,000,000 and the other invested 1,000. For the liberals, the difference is $999,000. Let's say, for argument's sake, that they both earned THE SAME RATE OF RETURN, or 10% because we want to be FAIR and if they get the same rate of return, that would be fair, right? (More on that assumption in a second.) So, and we just agreed the rate of return is FAIR ... then the first person will have $1,100,000 after one year and the second person will have $1,100, which is a delta of $1,098,900. What?!? The gap between the rich and poor grew larger?!? Oh, the horror!!

1a) Let's tilt the scales in favor of the poor person (that is what you libs wet dream about, right??). Let's give them 20% and keep the rich person at 10%. The gap still grows ($1,098,800 ... still higher than $999.000).

2) Now, the ROR in part 1 was 10% for both the "rich" person and the "poor" person. Now, pretty much anywhere you go, when you have more money in any investment, the bank or institution will reward you with better returns. IOW, the rich person would likely earn more than 10% (on average) and the poor person would only make 10%. Further, the poor person likely does not make good financial choices (which is partly why they are poor in the first place), so they may actually get less than 10% in reality. This would drive the annual difference EVEN HIGHER. Let's go one step further down the rabbit trail: once people learn how to make money (assuming the rich person saved their money over time), then they know HOW to make money. While the poor person may still be "coddled" and hasn't figured out how to build wealth yet. But, whatever, keep the 10% for both just to keep it simple.

3) Finally, one thing the liberal "analysis" doesn't account for is new people in the equation. For example, let's say when someone is 22, they only have the $1,000 from part 1. I haven't done the study, but I suspect that someone NEW turns 22 EVERY SINGLE day. So ... there is a new person at $1,000 every year! What does that mean? Going back to example 1), the "rich" person has $1,100,000 and the "poor" person has $1,000 (because they are new to the sample). The gap, then, is actually larger at $1,099,000. The gap grew again? What?!?

So, the gap grows every year and that is a GOOD THING. The only thing that would change the gap from growing is 1) no one can make any money ... which helps no one (communism), 2) the market totally collapses ... which helps no one (socialism), or 3) two poor people make a law and take, by force, from the rich person (democracy). Thank God for the Republic.

Looks like someone needs to be "coddled" even more...
You just wrote a rudimentary indictment of a capital based system and somehow came to the conclusion that it was good. If person A has 1 mil to invest and person B only 1k and both get their 10% all as you said, person A makes 100k and person B 100$. Person A and B did exactly the same thing but person A makes a thousand times more for absolutely no reason. Why should person A get a thousand times more for the exact same activity as person B?
 
You just wrote a rudimentary indictment of a capital based system and somehow came to the conclusion that it was good. If person A has 1 mil to invest and person B only 1k and both get their 10% all as you said, person A makes 100k and person B 100$. Person A and B did exactly the same thing but person A makes a thousand times more for absolutely no reason. Why should person A get a thousand times more for the exact same activity as person B?

Because he took on more risk, and they didn't do the exact same activity - 10 times the investment is 10 times as useful, it should produce 10 times the profit.

It really is amazing just how dumb you self-proclaimed "educated" useful idiots are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dionysus444
You just wrote a rudimentary indictment of a capital based system and somehow came to the conclusion that it was good. If person A has 1 mil to invest and person B only 1k and both get their 10% all as you said, person A makes 100k and person B 100$. Person A and B did exactly the same thing but person A makes a thousand times more for absolutely no reason. Why should person A get a thousand times more for the exact same activity as person B?
Because person A risked 1000 times more money. Person A had more skin in the game.
 
You just wrote a rudimentary indictment of a capital based system and somehow came to the conclusion that it was good. If person A has 1 mil to invest and person B only 1k and both get their 10% all as you said, person A makes 100k and person B 100$. Person A and B did exactly the same thing but person A makes a thousand times more for absolutely no reason. Why should person A get a thousand times more for the exact same activity as person B?

Because math? Lol, damn you’re envious.
 
You just wrote a rudimentary indictment of a capital based system and somehow came to the conclusion that it was good. If person A has 1 mil to invest and person B only 1k and both get their 10% all as you said, person A makes 100k and person B 100$. Person A and B did exactly the same thing but person A makes a thousand times more for absolutely no reason. Why should person A get a thousand times more for the exact same activity as person B?
Because they start at a different place. Math. I know its hard, but hang in there.
 
The sun is racist, confirmed. Not to mention at the same time...ppl like Ed here, who lives in Massachusetts, wants to tell southerners in places like Louisiana they're being selfish and shouldn't turn their thermostats down in the summer bc of the climate. But now, why not, they just can't resist tying yet something else to race.

They must be really concerned about losing a % of this demographic

It’s called the heat island effect and yes it affects minorities disproportionately, because due to Democrat policies such as welfare and public housing, minorities generally live in the urban areas. So who is at fault for the sun being racist?
 
Because person A risked 1000 times more money. Person A had more skin in the game.
If one has 1m and the other 1k they’re both risking the same thing, what they’ve got. They risk their savings, going back to their 9 to 5s. In fact in practical terms it’s often much riskier for the person with 1k. Because that 1k could be going to rent, food, necessities. When you have 1m you don’t have those same visceral concerns.
 
If one has 1m and the other 1k they’re both risking the same thing, what they’ve got. They risk their savings, going back to their 9 to 5s. In fact in practical terms it’s often much riskier for the person with 1k. Because that 1k could be going to rent, food, necessities. When you have 1m you don’t have those same visceral concerns.

No, it took 1000x labour to obtain what they got over the other. If they were both burger flippers, one had to flip 1000x as many burgers.

As I said, amazingly dumb you and your god MaRX "universally acclaimed" lol

You're idiots, accept it.
 
It’s called the heat island effect and yes it affects minorities disproportionately, because due to Democrat policies such as welfare and public housing, minorities generally live in the urban areas. So who is at fault for the sun being racist?
Who is at fault? Trump, of course.

Edit: I mean, he is orange.
 
Last edited:
The sun is racist, confirmed. Not to mention at the same time...ppl like Ed here, who lives in Massachusetts, wants to tell southerners in places like Louisiana they're being selfish and shouldn't turn their thermostats down in the summer bc of the climate. But now, why not, they just can't resist tying yet something else to race.

They must be really concerned about losing a % of this demographic

You have to be an absolute pathetic gaf to wear a mask in a profile pic.
 
The sun is racist, confirmed. Not to mention at the same time...ppl like Ed here, who lives in Massachusetts, wants to tell southerners in places like Louisiana they're being selfish and shouldn't turn their thermostats down in the summer bc of the climate. But now, why not, they just can't resist tying yet something else to race.

They must be really concerned about losing a % of this demographic


So, attempting to look at this seriously, they must have identified an isolated situation wherein a Section 8 neighborhood in downtown Phoenix, Dallas, or Houston, was about 120 one day, while far out in a residential area with grass and trees, it was only 100.

These people are disgusting.
 
It’s called the heat island effect and yes it affects minorities disproportionately, because due to Democrat policies such as welfare and public housing, minorities generally live in the urban areas. So who is at fault for the sun being racist?

But wait, now they want to move minorities to the suburbs, by providing tax money to cities/counties to destroy their zoning laws and allow multi-family housing in single family neighborhoods.
 
If one has 1m and the other 1k they’re both risking the same thing, what they’ve got. They risk their savings, going back to their 9 to 5s. In fact in practical terms it’s often much riskier for the person with 1k. Because that 1k could be going to rent, food, necessities. When you have 1m you don’t have those same visceral concerns.
And…it’s still a bigger financial risk for person A. Theyre investing a larger portion into the stock.

If you plant 10 tomato plants and I plant 1, should I be surprised that you have more tomatoes? Should I demand that we have equal tomatoes? Or, is it possible that you had one tomato last year, and instead of eating every tomato, you saved a couple for seeds. You had the foresight to plan to the next summer. You are reaping from that foresight. Perhaps there’s a lesson in there for you.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT