The reason why the Left wing ultimately always loses

[Kellhound]

"Bias" is a term that carries a strong implication of unfairness or prejudice, as basically any dictionary would tell you. So yes, you were strongly implying it was "bad". You don't get to just use a word at odds with the standard usage, and then claim that other people are just "too narrow minded" to psychically predict how you're manipulating the language, rather than just taking your comments at face value.

No, your lack of understanding what the word can actually mean shapes your inability to understand what I am saying, as you are so narrow minded you can only comprehend the negative connotation. A bias can be ANY a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, it does not have to be unreasonable or without merit. A bias can also be that which is used to achieve a desired mode of operation.

[Deleted]

Not bankers. German bankers.

Germany is ruled by the left.

Anyway OP point is moot: History does not favor left or right wingers, each regime is bound to be replaced by the next.

no its not.

its ruled by the christian democratic union which is a centric party, basically very friendly to the economy. do your research first. (just because some lefty is a minister, this doesnt mean anything. hes doing what he is told from the coalition, in which the cdu is the majority)

merkel is not a lefty. shes the first women to openly crawl in to the economists asses. ultra liberalism is what happened in greece, not leftwing politics. leftwing politics doesnt cut social expenses and jobs in the state. thats what liberals do.

[Noradin]

That just means that the particular brackets in that specific progressive system weren't set up properly. It isn't actually an attack on the concept of progressive taxation.

That is exactly what I said in a previous post.
Then I was asked for clarification and I clarified. Should I have repeated everything from my previous posts just because someone might misunderstand?

- - - Updated - - -

It is still a bias against the rich, it doesnt matter how you justify it and it doesnt matter if it is justified.

Whether it is a bias gainst the rich or in favour of them depends entirely on the metric you use to define "fair".
Using "disposable income and benefits per efford and qualifications" the bias is heavily in favour of the rich.
If you use "tax per person" or some such metric it is biased against the rich--who would have thought?

Why do the ones arguing that the rich have to pay too much taxes always overlook that rich people benefit exponentially more from public benefits than the average person? You cannot be rich without a society to support said wealth. It is impossible.
Yes, someone going to work every day benefits from the road he takes there, but the one employing workers benefits from every road any of their workers take to get to work. And that is just one example.

- - - Updated - - -

merkel is not a lefty. shes the first women to openly crawl in to the economists asses. ultra liberalism is what happened in greece, not leftwing politics. leftwing politics doesnt cut social expenses and jobs in the state. thats what liberals do.

I do not think you can simplify it that much.
What was asked of Greece wasn't ultra liberalism and what got Greece into the mess wasn't leftwing politics but simply a form of corruption that looked alike to somewhat leftwing politics at first glance. Just because the state is giving out money to people does not make it's politics leftwing.

- - - Updated - - -

No, your lack of understanding what the word can actually mean shapes your inability to understand what I am saying, as you are so narrow minded you can only comprehend the negative connotation. A bias can be ANY a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, it does not have to be unreasonable or without merit. A bias can also be that which is used to achieve a desired mode of operation.

If you want to use the mathematical defintion of "bias" (and maybe "discrimination", too) then you wouldn't object to using the mathematical definition of "fair", also, would you? Because that would clearly indicate your statement to be arbitrary and thus obsolete unless you can come up with a good reason why your choice for a metric to use is superior.

[Phlegethon]

The more left wingers i see post here, the more i realise why they will never win.

Quite simply put the vast majority of workers are low paid private sector workers.

These ordinary people, the taxpayer, wholely funds, through taxes, the public sector workforce.

When the Left Wing starts to get some power, they push for salary increases (through unions and strikes) and for more public sector numbers.

Well, guess what. When taxes start to rise and low paid private sector worker has to perform 2 jobs to pay the bills and they see the Left Wing spunk all the money away on welfare and immigrants whilst receiving high salaries themselves, the Right Wing goes on a rampage.

Do you Left Wingers not understand where your salary comes from, because some of the idiotic posts i see on here suggests not.

If you are a Left Winger and are interested in self preservation, the very first thing NOT to do is bite the hand that feeds you.

The ONLY way the Left Wing can be strong is through an economy with a strong private sector that creates enough wealth to pay for a strong public sector.

Back in cavemen days, the private sector came first. Man hunted. Council came second.

Please folks, try to remember that

The stupidity is strong in this one.
You really are clueless aren't you.