ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%

  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
There is never a better example of the failure of socialism vs capitalism than that of east and west Berlin.

Same exact population, same geography, same everything; with one exception - economic policy. West was capitalism and east was socialism/communism.

Almost immediately the east fell into disrepair and depression. Meanwhile the west prospered.

They literally needed a wall to prevent people from escaping the east.

This clear factual logical example annihilates the argument against capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catman100, barbourfor3, P19978 and 2 others
Winston-Churchill-on-Capitalism-and-Socialism.jpg


Churchill vs Dion, it is close but I am going with Churchill.

M0bnHsr.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Derington, ukalum1988, mdlUK.1 and 1 other person
Dionysus444 said:
I agree it's a long term position that would have negative local impact in the short term. That's why his proposal includes plans for transitioning those workers. You're thinking small. Doing away with private insurance will also destroy an industry that employees thousands. The question is whether these jobs should exist at all and then you worry about how to transition the people in them. As to getting votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania, yeah you're right. He's putting principle above personal interest. Exactly like a politician should.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, homeslice. This offers more than a little of either ignorance or dishonesty or a little of both. Banning fracking would have a hell of a lot more than a "negative" local impact. That is systemic shock to the system that only you BernieBots who don't understand finance and economics seem to be OK with. That's between half a million and a million people out of a job. That's rampant inflation - you do know energy prices undergird the prices of almost every single thing that we consume - and sky-rocketing unemployment. You think people are pissed at Trump? Wait until someone in charge tries a stunt like that.

If you suggest that I am thinking small, I suggest that you are not thinking at all. Unlike you, I have a real-world understanding of what the second- and third-order effects of all this shit. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is a decades-long project, and the entire American economy would be devastated if Sanders were to try that.

And who are you to deem that "the question is whether these jobs exist at all". What arrogant, stupid, ignorant blather. Ah, but yes, comrade, I am sure the state will do just a terrific job at allocating resources, providing jobs, and maximizing the flourishing of the country, just like it has always done. Yes, you, the twenty-something year old history grad who has never managed anything larger than your closet, yes, you're the one to deem them worthy of employment. Not the experts in the field who have spent years running and understanding these organizations.

What your ilk doesn't realize is that there are a hell of a lot of people out there like me, especially in swing states, who would have never in a million years imagined that they'd be voting for Donald F'ing Trump in 2020 and who didn't vote for him in 2016, but lo and behold, you are about to nominate the one moron who would be clear and demonstrative and catastrophic downgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music, fisherscatfan, Bill Derington and 3 others
Dionysus444 said:
Everyone knows these aren't the same thing even if I were reading from a script. You can't even accuse me of being a partisan hack competently.
Click to expand...

The whole Bloomberg makes more than blah blah number of americans is a bernie talking point as well as every other candidate running. It was also parroted by you in response to my question asking about your historical reasoning for liking socialism. I've called you a political hack using facts that are completely accurate.
 
NDlouisvillian said:
Uh, no, homeslice. This offers more than a little of either ignorance or dishonesty or a little of both. Banning fracking would have a hell of a lot more than a "negative" local impact. That is systemic shock to the system that only you BernieBots who don't understand finance and economics seem to be OK with. That's between half a million and a million people out of a job. That's rampant inflation - you do know energy prices undergird the prices of almost every single thing that we consume - and sky-rocketing unemployment. You think people are pissed at Trump? Wait until someone in charge tries a stunt like that.

If you suggest that I am thinking small, I suggest that you are not thinking at all. Unlike you, I have a real-world understanding of what the second- and third-order effects of all this shit. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is a decades-long project, and the entire American economy would be devastated if Sanders were to try that.

And who are you to deem that "the question is whether these jobs exist at all". What arrogant, stupid, ignorant blather. Ah, but yes, comrade, I am sure the state will do just a terrific job at allocating resources, providing jobs, and maximizing the flourishing of the country, just like it has always done. Yes, you, the twenty-something year old history grad who has never managed anything larger than your closet, yes, you're the one to deem them worthy of employment. Not the experts in the field who have spent years running and understanding these organizations.

What your ilk doesn't realize is that there are a hell of a lot of people out there like me, especially in swing states, who would have never in a million years imagined that they'd be voting for Donald F'ing Trump in 2020 and who didn't vote for him in 2016, but lo and behold, you are about to nominate the one moron who would be clear and demonstrative and catastrophic downgrade.
Click to expand...
You voted for Hillary?
 
In short: I cant account for every little trillion.

This would be the most ineffective president in history...but we'll be told how bread lines are a good thing

 
NDlouisvillian said:
Goddamnit. This is so wrong it's infuriating. "What's good for the country" is not destroying an industry that is damn near 10 ****ing percent of the GDP. An industry that employs millions of people (and has a preponderance of excellent-paying jobs available to people who may not have an education beyond high school) and of which fracking is a significant and rising portion of the industry. An industry that gives critical optionality to our leaders when it comes to foreign policy issues. An industry that pays many, many billions in taxes (at an effective rate way above that of most industries). An industry that has actually enabled the United States to cut carbon emissions the most of any country this century because LNG replacing coal is quite clean.

Sanders' idiotic proposition to ban fracking and oil and gas exports is one of the worst proposals of any President I can remember in my lifetime. It is also predictably stupid when two of the most critical states he has to win - Pennsylvania and Ohio - both have large energy sectors based off hydraulic fracturing.

I have a graduate degree in economics and work in a field in which I have to use it every day, and I think it's pretty clear you don't know what the hell you're talking about with this.
Click to expand...


Mic..drop
 
  • Like
Reactions: duke4life831 and BBUK
Dionysus444 said:
I'm not after your guns. The 2nd amendment exists for a variety of legitimate reasons. I grew up in a hunting culture. A reasonable debate on where we draw the line though is needed. A hunting rifle and a nuke are not the same thing. Nobody thinks we have a constitutional right to all arms.
Click to expand...

Lines don't amount to diddly. Most people are not baring "all arms".

Nobody has a problem with restricting arms from the right people, except libs because they won't like it when large groups of the same type of people start to find their way onto the "No weapons" list.

Put the demographics most prone to criminal gun violence and large scale shooting all on a list, and let's revisit in about 5-10 years. I'll bet dollars to donuts the drop is beyond statistically significant.

Most reasonable people are not against common-sense reform and solutions. "Take away all guns from all law-abiding, sane, no criminal history, nor mental health issues, people..." is not a common-sense solution.

No one is banning all sugar because heart disease kills about 25% of the population every year. Nobody is going around saying "hey no candy bars, cokes, or anything with high amounts of bad bad sugar in it (including orange and most other juices...you might as well drink a coke) for everyone". However, a lot of healthcare, diet, nutrition, and fitness experts are trying to educate everyone but specifically those most vulnerable and at risk of going off the rails.

A lot of people can responsibly own, handle, and use guns. Some can't for whatever reason. Target them. Just like a lot of folks can have snickers here, a bag of chips there and be fine, but some can't because of their body chemistry and/or mental and physical makeup/discipline.

Let's see a woke campaign take on the industrial mass-produced sugary processed foods complex, instead of the NRA that doesn't make or produce anything that kills people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music and Gassy_Knowls
truebluewildcat said:
Lines don't amount to diddly. Most people are not baring "all arms".

Nobody has a problem with restricting arms from the right people, except libs because they won't like it when large groups of the same type of people start to find their way onto the "No weapons" list.

Put the demographics most prone to criminal gun violence and large scale shooting all on a list, and let's revisit in about 5-10 years. I'll bet dollars to donuts the drop is beyond statistically significant.

Most reasonable people are not against common-sense reform and solutions. "Take away all guns from all law-abiding, sane, no criminal history, nor mental health issues, people..." is not a common-sense solution.

No one is banning all sugar because heart disease kills about 25% of the population every year. Nobody is going around saying "hey no candy bars, cokes, or anything with high amounts of bad bad sugar in it (including orange and most other juices...you might as well drink a coke) for everyone". However, a lot of healthcare, diet, nutrition, and fitness experts are trying to educate everyone but specifically those most vulnerable and at risk of going off the rails.

A lot of people can responsibly own, handle, and use guns. Some can't for whatever reason. Target them. Just like a lot of folks can have snickers here, a bag of chips there and be fine, but some can't because of their body chemistry and/or mental and physical makeup/discipline.

Let's see a woke campaign take on the industrial mass-produced sugary processed foods complex, instead of the NRA that doesn't make or produce anything that kills people.
Click to expand...

jail the fat people with diabetes. I’m all for that
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat
Bigblue2023 said:
You are a total fraud. You're a history major that doesnt know anything about history. I ask an honest question regarding your vast historical knowledge and all I get in return are Bernie campaign talking points that have zero to do with the question asked. You dance around real questions rather than engage in a true debate or discussion.

Dont get me wrong though, I totally understand why you act in such a manner. When your position is as whacked out as yours, using real data wont get you very far. Therefore you must resort to diversion and degrading your opponent. I hoped to have a real discussion with an American socialist, but all I got was the normal drivel of DNC talking points.
Click to expand...

He is a sick puppy. Diondadumbass... Incarcerate....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gassy_Knowls
warrior-cat said:
False.
Click to expand...

I have never seen posters like this weirdo, Booty, RQ, and another one using the least used words to make what they think will fool others into thinking it is intelligence. "Watch me big word them into oblivion." (That has to be on their mind. No way they converse like that. If they do they are more stupid than I perceive and that would be a heck of a feat because my opinion is they are nearly retarded.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sawnee Cat
NDlouisvillian said:
Uh, no, homeslice. This offers more than a little of either ignorance or dishonesty or a little of both. Banning fracking would have a hell of a lot more than a "negative" local impact. That is systemic shock to the system that only you BernieBots who don't understand finance and economics seem to be OK with. That's between half a million and a million people out of a job. That's rampant inflation - you do know energy prices undergird the prices of almost every single thing that we consume - and sky-rocketing unemployment. You think people are pissed at Trump? Wait until someone in charge tries a stunt like that.

If you suggest that I am thinking small, I suggest that you are not thinking at all. Unlike you, I have a real-world understanding of what the second- and third-order effects of all this shit. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is a decades-long project, and the entire American economy would be devastated if Sanders were to try that.

And who are you to deem that "the question is whether these jobs exist at all". What arrogant, stupid, ignorant blather. Ah, but yes, comrade, I am sure the state will do just a terrific job at allocating resources, providing jobs, and maximizing the flourishing of the country, just like it has always done. Yes, you, the twenty-something year old history grad who has never managed anything larger than your closet, yes, you're the one to deem them worthy of employment. Not the experts in the field who have spent years running and understanding these organizations.

What your ilk doesn't realize is that there are a hell of a lot of people out there like me, especially in swing states, who would have never in a million years imagined that they'd be voting for Donald F'ing Trump in 2020 and who didn't vote for him in 2016, but lo and behold, you are about to nominate the one moron who would be clear and demonstrative and catastrophic downgrade.
Click to expand...

Dayum......[laughing] :victory:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigblue2023
NDlouisvillian said:
Goddamnit. This is so wrong it's infuriating. "What's good for the country" is not destroying an industry that is damn near 10 ****ing percent of the GDP. An industry that employs millions of people (and has a preponderance of excellent-paying jobs available to people who may not have an education beyond high school) and of which fracking is a significant and rising portion of the industry. An industry that gives critical optionality to our leaders when it comes to foreign policy issues. An industry that pays many, many billions in taxes (at an effective rate way above that of most industries). An industry that has actually enabled the United States to cut carbon emissions the most of any country this century because LNG replacing coal is quite clean.

Sanders' idiotic proposition to ban fracking and oil and gas exports is one of the worst proposals of any President I can remember in my lifetime. It is also predictably stupid when two of the most critical states he has to win - Pennsylvania and Ohio - both have large energy sectors based off hydraulic fracturing.

I have a graduate degree in economics and work in a field in which I have to use it every day, and I think it's pretty clear you don't know what the hell you're talking about with this.
Click to expand...

Jimmy Carter tried his best to do it too. Created the misery index and the precursor to homelessness. He'd have been great if he'd have stuck to home building for the poor and peanuts.
 
Dionysus444 said:
You voted for Hillary?
Click to expand...

I was torn between her and a third party vote, and I went third party. I had a hard time swallowing a vote for perpetuating an American dynasty.

I was pretty dead set on voting Dem this time around if anyone except Warren or Sanders got the nom. Warren would’ve pushed me to another third party vote, and Sanders will 100% push me to Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music, WayneDougan and Bigblue2023
NDlouisvillian said:
Uh, no, homeslice. This offers more than a little of either ignorance or dishonesty or a little of both. Banning fracking would have a hell of a lot more than a "negative" local impact. That is systemic shock to the system that only you BernieBots who don't understand finance and economics seem to be OK with. That's between half a million and a million people out of a job. That's rampant inflation - you do know energy prices undergird the prices of almost every single thing that we consume - and sky-rocketing unemployment. You think people are pissed at Trump? Wait until someone in charge tries a stunt like that.

If you suggest that I am thinking small, I suggest that you are not thinking at all. Unlike you, I have a real-world understanding of what the second- and third-order effects of all this shit. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is a decades-long project, and the entire American economy would be devastated if Sanders were to try that.

And who are you to deem that "the question is whether these jobs exist at all". What arrogant, stupid, ignorant blather. Ah, but yes, comrade, I am sure the state will do just a terrific job at allocating resources, providing jobs, and maximizing the flourishing of the country, just like it has always done. Yes, you, the twenty-something year old history grad who has never managed anything larger than your closet, yes, you're the one to deem them worthy of employment. Not the experts in the field who have spent years running and understanding these organizations.

What your ilk doesn't realize is that there are a hell of a lot of people out there like me, especially in swing states, who would have never in a million years imagined that they'd be voting for Donald F'ing Trump in 2020 and who didn't vote for him in 2016, but lo and behold, you are about to nominate the one moron who would be clear and demonstrative and catastrophic downgrade.
Click to expand...

His lack of logic is incredible. Everything you say is spot on. Also consider if we did this - it still doesn't do anything about the environment.

Our consumption of fossil fuels wouldn't change. The only thing that would change is where we get it.

So not only would it be economically devastating, but it wouldn't even impact the very problem it's supposed to solve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gassy_Knowls
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

flacat22

AND THATS WHY THEY PLAY THE GAME!!! GO CATS!!

Replies
25
Views
1K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
flacat22
flacat22
funKYcat75
  • Poll

Best Christmas Movie - Round Two - Game 7

Replies
3
Views
578
The Paddock - General Discussion Forum
AshWilliams
AshWilliams
T

David Lynch and Mulholland Drive

Replies
9
Views
600
The Paddock - General Discussion Forum
UnfrozenCatfanLawyer
UnfrozenCatfanLawyer
M

Pope will right the ship

Replies
25
Views
870
The House of Blue
jboliv01
jboliv01
Mime-Is-Money

Koby Brea Appreciation - Great game Saturday

Replies
12
Views
697
The House of Blue
jhol
J
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back