Why are you a Republican or Democrat?

[BannedForViews]

That's not how it works in the US. You are delusional.

No I'm not. you don't know what you're talking about.

This is fun!

[ITER]

I'm ok with saying that you don't like affirmative action-type rules, but how do you explain the nuclear family part? Is that not special rules for the majority? Why not obey the middle part, which I'm all for, and just let people do what's not harming anyone else? Why have the government in any way concerned with family structure when you can simply not meddle in their lives and let them do what they want?

The nuclear family is the best way to raise children, the safest for women, and the best for society. Any other way is harmful. You can't promote something else and not harm (at the bare minimum) society as a whole. The government wouldn't have to meddle in the lives of citizens to do this. All they would have to do it stop giving money to single mothers past 1 out-of-wedlock child, stealing it from men to give to women when men didn't want a baby but the men didn't have any choice in the matter. Stop promoting the divorce rape of men in the family courts. Stop trying to push women into the job market and stop trying to criminalized natural male behavior as well as emasculate males.

- - - Updated - - -

Were these more "hard truths"?

Apparently to hard of truths for you since you haven't tried to refute any.

[May90]

Conservatives strive to keep things from changing, yet change has brought heightened prosperity.

They are afraid of bad change, and hence dislike any change. This is, of course, illogical, it would be like being afraid of a failed marriage and hence disliking marriage as an institute.
...
Oh wait, there are people on this very forum that think this way too! Now, excuse me... *dodges a few rotten tomatoes and leaves*

[BuckSparkles]

This is probably one of my biggest disagreements with the Republican, and generally conservative viewpoint. There is such a willful blindness to the reality of the world to believe that rich and poor is determined by level of work. I'm sorry, but there are far too many soldiers, police officers, firefighters, construction workers, etc etc. that work many more hours in much more dangerous conditions than any CEO will ever experience to possibly equate "hard work" with income earned. Being rich requires such a staggering confluence of factors beyond hard work, that making this the determining factor is simply farcical. What we should be aiming for as a society is greater opportunity and more equality between hardworking people, instead of watching wealth inquality increase and pretending the poor are the problem.

There will always be rich and poor. That is reality. It's human nature. Again, some are hard working, some are lazy, some are intelligent, some are dumb. We are not all equal in our ability.

[May90]

There will always be rich and poor. That is reality. It's human nature. Again, some are hard working, some are lazy, some are intelligent, some are dumb. We are not all equal in our ability.

And you don't think governmental policies affect the quality of life of either in any way? This is such a lazy argument... It's like, "I'll never be a billionaire, so why work on increasing my income?"

[clappywappy]

democrat i guess its just the way i was raised to be

[Annoying]

The nuclear family is the best way to raise children, the safest for women, and the best for society. Any other way is harmful. You can't promote something else and not harm (at the bare minimum) society as a whole. The government wouldn't have to meddle in the lives of citizens to do this. All they would have to do it stop giving money to single mothers past 1 out-of-wedlock child, stealing it from men to give to women when men didn't want a baby but the men didn't have any choice in the matter. Stop promoting the divorce rape of men in the family courts. Stop trying to push women into the job market and stop trying to criminalized natural male behavior as well as emasculate males.

Oh the classic "stealing it from men". There are 3 parties involved, not two. The right of the child to thrive supersedes the "right" (hint, not a right) of the man to not have consequences for his actions. I might agree with there being some pretty bad outcomes for divorce and for custody. As for the nuclear family, it's certainly preferable to single-parent families, but there are other, non-nuclear options that perform just as well at raising children.

[BuckSparkles]

And you don't think governmental policies affect the quality of life of either in any way? This is such a lazy argument... It's like, "I'll never be a billionaire, so why work on increasing my income?"

I don't think you are following what I am posting. Some people are bad with money. Some are good.

[ITER]

Why is it that people who want to hoot and holler about how America is the best thing ever are always so quick to be OK with only marginally beating third world countries known for having horrific problems with basic human rights? Besides that, people still get killed and subjected to other forms of violence here specifically for not being straight.


Conservatives strive to keep things from changing, yet change has brought heightened prosperity.

If the West is so bad, why don't you live somewhere else? If you google it I am certain you can find a vasty majority of other attacks directed at white heterosexual males for who they are. BLM is a perfect example. Not to mention that young child and college students are being taught that whiteness is a disease and #killallwhitemen hashtags were fun.

Except things were working fine until the left started to change things for the sake of change. As well as to punish people today for crimes in the past that they weren't alive for.

[BannedForViews]

By comparison, I feel like Republicans are equally delusional in their misguided nationalism, unquestioning faith in open market capitalism, fundamental misunderstanding of the necessity of taxation, and perpetual view of the past through rose-tinted glasses.


This is probably one of my biggest disagreements with the Republican, and generally conservative viewpoint. There is such a willful blindness to the reality of the world to believe that rich and poor is determined by level of work. I'm sorry, but there are far too many soldiers, police officers, firefighters, construction workers, etc etc. that work many more hours in much more dangerous conditions than any CEO will ever experience to possibly equate "hard work" with income earned. Being rich requires such a staggering confluence of factors beyond hard work, that making this the determining factor is simply farcical. What we should be aiming for as a society is greater opportunity and more equality between hardworking people, instead of watching wealth inquality increase and pretending the poor are the problem.


I find it funny that Republicans tend to espouse this sort of logic, but ignore the middle of the equation. A strong family is apparently important, but a strong community made of people working together towards a common goal through strong social programs and a strong social safety net is an evil socialist plot. A strong community at every level (local, regional, state, national) is far more important than whether or not both a husband and wife are at home. A stronger, broader community can accommodate for any failings of the communities within it, right down to the family level.


I don't know what part of being liberal runs counter to capitalism. I've never understood that actually. People innovate, create, and compete in some of the most liberal and socialist societies on the planet. Some of the biggest hinderances to free market capitalism are corporate protectionism, and crony capitalism, that only serve to keep the money in the hands of those in power. We need more regulation, and better legislation, made by honest regulators and knowledgeable legislators, not a free for all that endangers everyone not currently in power.

"Free" markets are why you experience all the amazing things you have today. If you don't like them, there are many countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East, hell even North Korea, that would love to show you what a non free market looks like. Even China, who disenfranchises a good 1 billion citizens could teach you a lesson or two.


Being rich or poor is primarily a level of work, as well as luck both in things that happen to you in your daily life as well as the gifts you were given from birth. A very simple example is the professional athlete. Yes they are genetically gifted, but they also put in countless hours of work honing their craft. There are numerous people who were given those gifts from birth but did not cultivate them and therefore are not rich from them. Being rich is not about how labor intensive or dangerous your job is, it is about how well you utilize and cultivate the talents you have. It is also a mindset. Over 60% of NBA players end up bankrupt, even though they've made more money in a few years than most anyone will make in a lifetime. Just earning money is not enough, but you need to understand how to keep and grow it, and be willing to do so. Most people are not.


Your third claim above is just demonstrably false, and has been proven so over and over. A community is no substitute for 2 parents. Study after study have shown that 2 parents are substantially more successful at raising children then one, let alone whatever you believe "community" to be. Google it, read some articles, reevaluate your false belief. I'm not interested in your opinions though for they are wrong, just wrong.


Corporate protections are not Capitalist (unless you mean patents which most definitely are). Why modern-liberal theory is not comparable with capitalism, besides the fact that it demonizes the capitalists, is that any theft of production (read taxes) not only slows the rate of growth but discourages people from working. This is a real thing, it is not imaginary. People at higher levels of income will choose leisure over work after different levels of taxation are reached, because the value of their time is greatly diminished while working and they're rather spend it doing things they like, family, friends, etc. And this of course ignores the fact that modern liberalism cannot justify its moral right to tax to a classical liberal.

[Felya]

Because the two party system is so pervasive, that independence is very difficult to realize. When you see alternatives from both parties, always needing the justification of belonging to them, the idea of independence is so far away from all of the incorrectly perceived assumptions... That it simply doesn't have an easy solution... There are too many walls in the way of distinguishing between what elections are and the way they are perceived.

[BannedForViews]

Oh the classic "stealing it from men". There are 3 parties involved, not two. The right of the child to thrive supersedes the "right" (hint, not a right) of the man to not have consequences for his actions. I might agree with there being some pretty bad outcomes for divorce and for custody. As for the nuclear family, it's certainly preferable to single-parent families, but there are other, non-nuclear options that perform just as well at raising children.

You claim the man must have consequences for his actions by why must society have consequences for the actions of individuals, i.e. taxes diverted to supporting people who choose to have children but don't choose to take on the responsibility of raising those children.

[Stormspellz]

Enough of these against gay/Alphabet orientation arguments. Gays are roughly what 1% of the population, they say they want equality then say that means special treatment for them. Something with blacks, same thing with ever minority because in america "oppression" means special rights and money for them. Thats why everyone and their mom wants to say they are oppressed. The left always says how horrible America is to gays and minorities but then why aren't we killing them like other places in the world. Why do all the minorities still want to come here. Whites are the minority in the world so why aren't you fighting for whites rights in Africa or multiculturalism in other places?You talk about debt, but Obama expanded it the most and a bunch of people wanted to elect a socialist on the left even though socialism doesn't work and adds more to the debt.

No they want equality, you know same rules of marriage, again name legislation that grants them "special rights"

SOCIAL JUSTICE! BLM! THE PATIRCHY! PROGRESSIVE! WHITE GUILTY! MASS IMMIGRATION! MORE GIRLS IN STEM, IN SCHOOL(While boys and men are doing worse and worse) All have been pushed by the left since I can remember.

Random no name youtube blogger is not policy or even legislation influencing

Except for the fact the polish and Irish wanted to become Americans, they wanted to assimilate. There was no social programs they wanted to leech off of. Latinos don't integrate instead they create the same hellhole they came from and scream how good their old country is and at the same time tell me how bad my country is. Muslims don't assimilate, become more radicalized over generations, want to enforce sharia law and could be a potential terrorist. Why is it okay to restrict the personal right of a business by not letting them choose who they would hire? You put another person's right over another. You do realize if you let people be racist, sexiest, etc. most people probably wouldn't do business there.

You misunderstand me by the way. I am not a big fan of trump or the republicans. I think they both wouldn't be good. Both the democrats and republicans will run this country into the ground. However the democrats will do it faster so I vote republican to try to buy more time to fix things.

They want to be americans, they want better lives for them and their children, you know the american dream and all that. the whole "muslim zones" of sharia law don't exist, yes are there bad apples? of course that simple % of just like the crazy white criminal or christian extremist don't define everyone else. Personal right of business doens't exist, its a business not a person, further more business license and using public assets is reason enough to say "no you can't discriminate". Its no different saying "no blacks" we don't allow that, no one has issues of that in this day in age, why is "no gays" not being allowed an issue?

You seem to think its the lefts policies aka legislation that is doing the "great harm" but its in fact the opposite, randoms ranting are just that random people on a rant, the legislation that has been proposed is whats is important and in that regard the right take the fear mongering to paper and attempt to pass such legislation that only benefits them and their donors or satisfy their fanatical base.

[BannedForViews]

I mean, also, there's this permanently limited resource known as "time" and working your entire life away to never enjoy any of it is a silly strategy nobody is going to engage in unless it's their only choice with or without taxes.

What is your point. This doesn't engage with anything I said.

[Ghostpanther]

And if you know your history native americans in many cases did worst thing to the settlers and worst things to each other before europeans even got there. What I am trying to say is the VAST MAJORITY of europeans didn't purposely plan to perform an attempted genocide on the native americans. Even if they did it didn't work and why should people today be punished for something they didn't do? Should we start punishing black people for their ancestors slavery or about the mass killings of whites in countries in Africa TODAY?

The vast majority of men couldn't vote either. The wealthy women got to vote before the vast majority of men did anyways. Men got the vote because they have to register for the draft; women got it because a small wealthy group of bored housewives whined. The suffragettes would have also been labeled terrorists by today's standard since they bombed government buildings and there is suggestions that they delayed women from getting the vote. Also given women political power has destroyed every other society that has allowed it. 5 other societies have given women political power and all societies showed a massive collapse in social cohesion because it destroyed the agreement between men and women that produced society in the first place, just FYI.

Yes. Brutality was not limited to just the western white folks. We have come a long ways since then and for the better. But there are so many points in your post I disagree with, I do not know where to start and it would be getting off the topic too much. So I will keep it short. I strongly disagree with the bold part. It smells too much like racism for my liking.

[Bushtuckrman]

Australia's immigration policy is sufficiently racist to preclude that, I can assure you.

Yes everything is racist to you, we know. We have a proper vetting procedure in place and our left wing government in 1992 made mandatory detention for boat arrivals to properly vet them first. That's why we don't have anywhere near the problems the rest of the world has but people like you desperately want to ruin our beautiful country and its citizens. Go move to Sweden and Germany it is your idea of paradise now.

[Spectral]

They worked for a shitty company that didn't process their paperwork for them. Fortune 500 companies handle all of that for you. I don't know their situation either if the work was just temp or not? Many factors play into all of this if you come just to work. Other than that many people achieve citizenship every year.

One of the individuals I'm referring to moved here legally as a teen and is currently a scientist in academic research. Another moved here at 19 and is a resident dentist. I cannot fathom a coherent argument that we wouldn't be better off fast-tracking someone like that. The notion that it should require a Fortune 500 company's legal might is ridiculous.

[Bushtuckrman]

Yes. Brutality was not limited to just the western white folks. We have come a long ways since then and for the better. But there are so many points in your post I disagree with, I do not know where to start and it would be getting off the topic too much. So I will keep it short. I strongly disagree with the bold part. It smells too much like racism for my liking.

Fucking hell do you lot just attach 'racism' to anything you don't like? Criticising women in general is now racism?!?

[ITER]

Oh the classic "stealing it from men". There are 3 parties involved, not two. The right of the child to thrive supersedes the "right" (hint, not a right) of the man to not have consequences for his actions. I might agree with there being some pretty bad outcomes for divorce and for custody. As for the nuclear family, it's certainly preferable to single-parent families, but there are other, non-nuclear options that perform just as well at raising children.

Except the left and mostly women use the "Whats best for the child" to just take money for themselves. It doesn't go to the child. Except the women had just has much of a responsibility for the action but she gets to have so many "get out of jail free" cards to play. The man has none. Why do you think it is okay for a woman to control a man's life for 18-21 years?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...l-mom-dad-fam/

[BannedForViews]

It's silly to blame taxation for rich people not wanting to work more when half the benefit of being rich is that you can afford to spend more time engaged in leisure and enjoying yourself, which is ultimately what people are working for in the first place.

Most of the people who enjoy spending rich peoples money are not the people actually earning the money. The workaholic mentality is a real thing, and a real cause for why most people earn large sums of money.

That being said it's a self evident that humans will seek the best outcome if given the opportunity. If you can avoid paying taxes you will try to do so. If people didn't do this they would just write bigger checks than necessary to the treasury. No one is stopping them. People will attempt to maximize their self benefit, and to the point that they think that maximization is leisure over work, they pick leisure.

Here is an example. Lets say you make 500 dollars an hour and you can work as much as you want. If you work 4000 hours in a year you have 2 million dollars. You increase your wealth from 0 to 2 million, so infinitely over the course of that year. The next year you increase by 100%, the following year 50%, the following year 33%, then 25%, 20%, and so on. At a certain point you will say 1%, or .05% more money isn't worth it, so you will stop working. Taxation changes the rate at which these points are reached and therefore augments the work cycle.