Forums / Discussion / General

I’m sayiing the “actual” results are fake

will you quit "quoting" things and say what you actually mean?
like yea, of course the results they shown were fake, the election hadn't happened yet. No one is claiming they are real.

lets see what I can name off the top of my head that dems support that republicans don't;
Higher min wage (around $10 to $15)
universal (not to be confused with single payer) healthcare
to some degree, single payer healthcare (public option)
reduced military spending
opening borders, allowing more people to become citizens
wealth tax
legalize cannabis (and decriminalize other drugs)
human equality (lgbt rights, men/women rights, etc.)

ok, now let me go to their party website and see more;
voting rights
"Instead of investing in more jails and incarceration, we need to invest more in jobs and education, and end the school-to-prison pipeline."
abolish the death penalty

Do you want me to go on?

"reduced military spending"
You are factually wrong
"opening borders, allowing more people to become citizens"
Nope
"legalize cannabis (and decriminalize other drugs)"
Melting-brain Biden doesn't think so, and he's gonna be the democratic nominee

>You are factually wrong

voting for increased spending does not mean they support it. You should know this.

>Nope

What does that link have anything to do with what you quoted? You linked an article about deportation, and the line you quoted from me was about opening borders and allowing more people to become citizens.

>Melting-brain Biden doesn't think so, and he's gonna be the democratic nominee

k? We are talking about the party, not biden specifically. There is no single democrat member that lines up 100% completely with the party line overall.

"voting for increased spending does not mean they support it. You should know this."
That's exactly what voting for something means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiation

Is that what Chamberlain called it?

Get for some 4th Amendment violations!

So that means the Iraq War, NSA spying, and the countless tax cuts for billionaires are okay! Right?

You said I was wrong about democrats being against increase military spending. You have not posted any evidence suggesting I was wrong. Do you concede that point, or do you want to continue your flimsy claim that voting for something = supporting it?

You know Joe Biden is okay with NSA spying right? Or do you just not care?

It's not that I don't have problems with Trump, his administration, or the GOP; but why should I trust the Democrats after 2016 and their attitudes on, and towards, just about everything and everyone for the past 4, almost 5 years now?

Why or how should I trust them to do anything? The "Blue Wave" of 2018 basically only accomplished getting Trump a larger military budget, why would Dem Leadership even change any problem in the current America, or world?

Your statement is a non-falsifiable claim.

linking to the democrat party platform where they say they support military spending increases would be super easy. Its easy to prove republicans want to raise military spending.
We support lifting the budget cap for defense and reject the efforts of Democrats to hold the military’s budget hostage for their domestic agenda. Congress and the Administration should work together to approve military spending at the level necessary to defend our country.

and I guess reduce military spending isn't exactly what the democrats say.
We must end waste in the defense budget. We will audit the Pentagon, launch a high-level commission to review the role of defense contractors, and take greater action against those who have been involved in fraud. And we will ensure that the Department of Defense invests its budget wisely.

So, sorta reduce, but definitely not increase like republicans want to. And that is one issue. There were 11 other issues I listed, and many others I didn't list that separate republicans and democrats. To suggest both parties are the same is just you openly admitting you have no idea what goes on in politics.

Now that is some doublethink right there

Hey, I really hate to interrupt the current argument over the election, but with the Corona-stuff happening lately, big G is trying to sneakily pass an -- EXCEPTIONALLY -- dangerous bill called the Earn-It Act. I haven't had much time to look at it myself yet, but at the risk of being a shill this guy: https://youtu.be/R-QFjZhjN7c , has what seems to be a fairly educational video on it. As usual, do your own research first, I haven't yet so I'm not going to formally be apart of the discussion yet, but I thought that considering that this is the politics board and that this is a fairly important thing that seems to be passing under the radar, I thought it prudent to post this somewhere.

To mods: I don't think I broke any rules here but if I did, please let me know so that I can correct course.

The Republican Senate has been blocking everything the Democratic Party has been trying to accomplish ever since, and even gave Trump a free pass to do whatever thanks to their partisan acquittal.

As of today, every gain in the DOW Industrial under Trump's presidency has been erased over the past couple of weeks.

Jan, 2017: 19.827
March, 2020: 19,808

how is it double think? How do you expect any bills to pass without negotiating?

There's no requirement to vote in favor of a bill. You remember Obamacare? When democrats "negotiated" with republicans so that the republicans could proceed not to vote in favor of it?

>There's no requirement to vote in favor of a bill.

I never said there was.

>You remember Obamacare? When democrats "negotiated" with republicans so that the republicans could proceed not to vote in favor of it?

Yes. So back to the topic, do you understand that voting for something =/= support? or do you still not?

You don't negotiate unless you plan on voting in favor of a bill at some point. Otherwise they simply vote against it or vote present.
"Voting for something =/= support" is a made up so that you can absolve congressmen of any immoral or unethical votes they made.

>You don't negotiate unless you plan on voting in favor of a bill at some point. Otherwise they simply vote against it or vote present.

Right. and to add to that, voting in favor of a bill =/= supporting the entire contents of the bill.
What, exactly, do you think negotiating inquires?

>"Voting for something =/= support" is a made up so that you can absolve congressmen of any immoral or unethical votes they made.

this is why you have such a hard time understanding things, because you just make things up. I never said or implied that. I said what I said and I meant what I meant. If you decide to add extra meaning to it, then you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with a strawman.

to go back to what I said earlier; this is one issue. There were 11 other issues I listed, and many others I didn't list that separate republicans and democrats. To suggest both parties are the same is just you openly admitting you have no idea what goes on in politics.

inb4 “but that means it’s cutting out the inefficiancy” completely ignoring that depressions/recessions only hurt small buisnesses and anyone who isn’t rich

rich people invest heavily in the stock market. The stock market has crashed. Everyone is negatively affected by this.

They lost an amount of money not needed to sustain their lifestyles or holdings. None of them are going to suffer at all. A person can survive easily on 500 million for hundreds of years, and none of these peoples net worth have come close to dropping that low.

>A person can survive easily on 500 million for hundreds of years, and none of these peoples net worth have come close to dropping that low.

Who are you referring to when you say "these people". Plenty of people's net worth have from to $500 million.

Billionaires mostly. The fortune who protected caste in the us.

Also, in the most absurd story thus far. Mitch Mcconell proposed Universal Basic Income, the republicans swallowing a bitter pill to help families and workers har.ed by the recession and corona virus shutdowns.

ONLY TO BE BLOCKED BY NANCY PELOSI AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS.

In the smalller brain move, Nancy pelosi validates every trumper whose claimed its the dems slowing down and sabotaging government in trying to enforce laws, AND positioned the Democratic Party as being pro-corporate and anti-middle and lower class, alienating their entire base.

Not that I doubt politicians fucking shit up for political posturing, but I am having a real hard time believing Mitch McConell actually having a heart

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1819369/coronavirus-sparks-support-for-universal-basic-income/amp/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/17/mcconnell_to_gop_senators_who_oppose_coronavirus_aid_bill_gag_and_vote_for_it_anyway.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/18/refusal-pelosi-consider-universal-cash-payments-response-coronavirus-pandemic%3famp

Tulsi has dropped out and endorsed Biden

Fucking mental that Pelosi would pick now of all times to be playing this bullshit.

Seriously, considering Biden's near enough guaranteed to get the ticket, if Trump was to openly endorse Medicare for All he straight up pushes the "I win" Button at this point

Another shill, who I’ll never vote for if she runs again

No, the rich are not

What
is
this
upside
down
reality
we
live
in

jesus christ, are we doing a second party ideology swap?

It also hurts a lot of pensioner funds. In fact, most of public pension funds are heavily invested in the market. And not just public, but private too. A lot of people, if not the vast majority of people, have a lot of their retirement savings nested in the stock market, for good reasons.

What it tells me is that people on both sides have so little understanding of what separates capitalism and socialism, and that the term "socialism" is so goddam muddled and amorphous in the US that to even use it as a term is meaningless.

In his book "Capitalism and Freedom", Milton Friedman, one of the God-Fathers of Market Capitalism and Libertarianism (if not outright anarcho-capitalism), made a strong argument for UBI.

He called it a "negative income tax".

To be fair, he proposed it as a substitute to a myriad of byzantine government bureaucracies.

"We should replace the ragbag of specific welfare programs with a single comprehensive program of income supplements in cash -- a negative income tax. It would provide an assured minimum to all persons in need, regardless of the reasons for their need…A negative income tax provides comprehensive reform which would do more efficiently and humanely what our present welfare system does so inefficiently and inhumanely."

I agree, actually, with Friedman. UBI could and probably would drastically shrink the size of government welfare programs. Not only that, but UBI helps maximize freedoms and liberties of the poor as well. Instead of going through a myriad of government tallies to determine whether or not they can spend X dollars on rent or Y on food – it would simply put cash in their hand to spend on whatever they choose to.

It would stop the current welfare system from punishing you for working. That is, a guaranteed UBI would only stack on top of whatever you are already earning. Rather than creating a system where if you are disincentivized from working if that means giving up the welfare benefits (which, if you play your cards right, can actually reach into tens of thousands of dollars a year).

And fundamentally, to quote Friedman again:

"One of the great virtues of the negative income tax, in my opinion, is that by taking off the mass burden of income maintenance it would make it possible for private charitable organizations to do charity work"

It gives people the opportunity to engage their time into work that isn't compensated by the market.

It's why I supported Andrew Yang's proposal on UBI, despite being quite market-capitalist myself.

Yes, that’s my point
unless you’re rich, this hurts

Secret recording of Sen. Richard Burr shows he was making a greater warning about the COVID-19 virus than any statement he made publicly.

These fuckers knew how bad it was gonna get, and yet won't say anything in public.

being rich does not negate the affects of the stock market going down on your own stock portfolio.

When you're rich it means "oh darn, I can't buy another yacht" vs those who aren't rich "there goes everything I had"

right

Unelected Senator Kelly Loeffler probably committed insider trading by selling stock after a coronavirus briefing.

Senator Burr seems to also have gotten in the fun of insider trading.

Ookay, quick rundown of the Senators that got caught insider trading.
Burr
Loeffler
Inhofe
Feinstein
Johnson

Good to see being a bastard is a bipartisan thing, reminds me why I don't trust any politician