Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
LastLast
  1. #81
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    I gotta tell ya, I have zero interest and see zero value in arguing about ok, yes, Democrats won, but they lost because they should have won bigger.
    It’s not a mater of winning bigger, but what will happen when Trump isn’t on the ballot.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    It’s not a mater of winning bigger, but what will happen when Trump isn’t on the ballot.
    It's a cult of personality so I think Republicans will actually fare worse. (DJTJ and Ivanka are a thing, I know...I'm hoping they'll be super busy with court...)
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post

    Complete Nonsense lmao.
    Democrats were the ones who wanted to provide a better Standard of Living to people with Increase Funding for Schools, Medicare for all, Increases in Minimum Wage, and Lower Taxes for the Middle Class, policies the Right wing are against.
    If you ask someone if he wants 1600 dollar each month with funding for schools m4a and minimum wage or have 3500 dollar without all the benfits you mentioned they will choose the 3500 dollars.

    minimum wage? useless! you dont want to be stuck on minimal wage .You want make a carreer and move upwards. Funding for school or m4a? thats nice but i rather pay somewhat more if it means maintaining my salary of 3500. The best way to increase living standards is making sure people have a better salary each month.

    And the problem is the well paying industrial jobs in rust belt got decimated under Obama. People no longer believe that they are the party of the working class.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    If you ask someone if he wants 1600 dollar each month with funding for schools m4a and minimum wage or have 3500 dollar without all the benfits you mentioned they will choose the 3500 dollars.

    minimum wage? useless! you dont want to be stuck on minimal wage .You want make a carreer and move upwards. Funding for school or m4a? thats nice but i rather pay somewhat more if it means maintaining my salary of 3500. The best way to increase living standards is making sure people have a better salary each month.

    And the problem is the well paying industrial jobs in rust belt got decimated under Obama. People no longer believe that they are the party of the working class.
    Except... Trump increased spending, and even raised taxes.

    Man, you guys suck at salesmanship.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    To be honest, there was arguably a red wave this year. The GOP gained seats in the House and may have kept the Senate in a year that was supposed to favour Democrats. Trump hiself lost, but still gained more votes than nearly anyone before and could have cruised to a second term if not for the pandemic of our lifetimes.
    Those are good points that almost everyone posting on the Left side of the fence here is refusing to acknowledge, even going as far as saying the opposite.
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Seriously stop talking about trump . Trump is soon gone and you voted in a globalist dipshit in his place. What is he going to do for the people in the midwest? i swear 2022 GOP will take the house and senate by storm and is going to ratfuck the biden administration to oblivion.
    How globalist were those that supported the pnac?

  6. #86
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    If you ask someone if he wants 1600 dollar each month with funding for schools m4a and minimum wage or have 3500 dollar without all the benfits you mentioned they will choose the 3500 dollars.
    Having $3500/mo before taxes, and $1600 after taxes, means you're looking at an effective tax rate of 54%. On an income of $42,000/year.

    Canada has school funding, including a lot of post-secondary funding for Canadian students, a higher federal minimum wage than the USA, and better universal healthcare than M4A would provide.

    Punching those figures into a tax calculator (using Ontario for provincial factors, which if anything is higher than most); https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-ca/tool/tax-calculator/

    We get an effective tax rate of just under 20%, in actual fact.

    If we want to adjust for the current dollar values to be more accurate, that would make this about C$53,500, not $42,000. Punch those in, and we get . . .

    just under 22.5% effective tax rate.

    Your false dichotomy is predicated on forcing an irresponsible tax burden onto the lowest 40% of income earners. A burden no developed country implements, despite offering the services you're claiming it would be required to fund.

    You are making shit up in an incredibly lazy, deliberately misleading manner.


  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Having $3500/mo before taxes, and $1600 after taxes, means you're looking at an effective tax rate of 54%. On an income of $42,000/year.

    Canada has school funding, including a lot of post-secondary funding for Canadian students, a higher federal minimum wage than the USA, and better universal healthcare than M4A would provide.

    Punching those figures into a tax calculator (using Ontario for provincial factors, which if anything is higher than most); https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-ca/tool/tax-calculator/

    We get an effective tax rate of just under 20%, in actual fact.

    If we want to adjust for the current dollar values to be more accurate, that would make this about C$53,500, not $42,000. Punch those in, and we get . . .

    just under 22.5% effective tax rate.

    Your false dichotomy is predicated on forcing an irresponsible tax burden onto the lowest 40% of income earners. A burden no developed country implements, despite offering the services you're claiming it would be required to fund.

    You are making shit up in an incredibly lazy, deliberately misleading manner.
    Good job on wasting your time


    Infracted.
    Last edited by Flarelaine; 2021-01-01 at 07:00 AM. Reason: Comments made wioth the sole purpose of baiting, mocking or taunting another poster are considered trolling.

  8. #88
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    21,922
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Good job on wasting your time
    Admitting that you're either too dense to understand or too unwilling to accept reality is an interesting strategy on your part

  9. #89
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Good job on wasting your time
    In pointing out that your example was wildly dishonest?

    Why was that a waste of time? Because everyone should just expect that from you? That's the only way I'd consider that to have been a waste of time.

    Because it doesn't convince you that you're wrong about basic concepts? Oh, honey. I'm not trying to convince you. You're not the intended audience. I couldn't care less about whether I convince you that you're wrong; you can't reason someone out of a position they irrationally worked themselves into in the first place. I'm just making sure nobody else takes your comment seriously.

    That's why I try and provide links to resources I use, so that readers can fact-check my work if they're unsure of my results. I've got nothing to hide, and anyone who's just going to refuse to check my work and reject what I'm saying wouldn't ever be convinced by anything I said on any subject, ever, so it would be a waste of my time to try.


  10. #90
    As if Canadian policies matter...

  11. #91
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    As if Canadian policies matter...
    When the question is whether those policies are affordable in general, that they're affordable basically everywhere but the USA is clearly relevant.


  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Good job on wasting your time
    No one replies to you thinking you're smart enough to change your mind based on evidence. But maybe, just maybe, someone else who reads it can see that you're basically drooling on your keyboard with whatever some right wing pundit told you to say and the rest of us respond to facts and evidence and support our claims.


    At this point I'm not sure you can turn your computer on yourself without outside help or maybe some giant sign pointing to the on button.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    When the question is whether those policies are affordable in general, that they're affordable basically everywhere but the USA is clearly relevant.
    People like @Shadowferal confuses can't be done with elected officials don't want to do it. I guess it's fair to say it can't be done because of that reason but we're currently paying more for less in the USA than any comparable western/developed country does for healthcare. And we get worse healthcare to boot. Even a bad single payer/universal healthcare system would be better just from the sheer fact that everyone is covered and wouldn't have to duck necessary preventative medical care because they couldn't afford it only to get screwed over by the inevitable emergency care.

    Funny enough and correct me if I'm wrong Canada actually has some bigger problems than the US due to it's size in terms of providing universal care. I use Montana as a reference because it's where my family is from but it's that time 10000x. And they pull it off reasonably well. Certainly better than US healthcare.
    Last edited by shimerra; 2020-12-31 at 06:42 PM.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

  13. #93
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Which to me has always been the unshakeable tenets of conservatism since prior to the founding of this country. It was borne from loyalists to the British Crown. They deceived, deluded, misinformed, suppressed, lynched, and committed genocide and war to preserve their fiefdoms. The US has suffered since its inception by people who don't value democracy.
    This is not exactly so carved in stone.

    There were really two American revolutions happening. In the northern states down to the northern Mid Atlantic was the "classic" American revolution. Red Coats vs Colonials. Washington's army evading disaster. Valley Forge. Much of the formation-level conflict until late in the war was fought in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvannia and Quebec. But after August 1777, New York City and nearly the entirety of New England was locked down and occupied for the duration of the Revolution. The conflict shifted southward, until it arrived at it's ultimately endpoint in Yorktown in 1781. This was not some accident. After locking down the North, even after losing momentum in the Mid-Atlantic, the British sought to hold onto the South. The British even as late as 1780s thought of the Colonies is purely merchantalist terms. And the north and mid-atlantic states were expensive and poor revenue generators compared to the agricultural and cotton form the southern states (and moreover, the Carribean, which was more valuable to the crown than the US.

    The Southern Colonies were at a significant crossroads compared to the North. That had lucrative economic links with Britain the north had fewer of. Religiously, there was hostility between Anglican south and the Congregationalist / Presbyterian north. And there was the ever present concern of northern business and industry lording over the less developed South.

    This made much of the American revolution in Virgina, North Carolia, South Carolina, Georgia and to a lesser degree Maryland very much a neighbor-against-neighbor thing between loyalists and patriots.

    At the end of the Revolution, crown loyalists faced harassment across the former colonies. Many left to Canada and some to the United Kingdom. We don't typically think of the American revolution as dividing the country, but it did. Not exactly down the middle, but enough to upend society, economics and post-war governing.

    So to claim that modern conservatism somehow owes its uttermost source to the crown loyalists is farcical and useless. It's about as accurate as saying "human beings uttermost ancestor was an amphibian that learned to live on land". Well yeah... we all come from somewhere... but it doesn't tell you much about how how people now does it?

    In fact, just to show how much bad history there is, let's examine what happened in the next twenty years after Yorktown.

    The first political party in the US in the loosest terms were the Federalists. Their core political philosophy, as relentlessly promoted by Alexander Hamiliton, was an increase in government centralism at the expense of state power. Some founders were very much intent in the United States being basically a confederation of 50 countries. Others saw them as a new sub-national unity. This was not resolved by the founders. They debated it within their life time. But many of the leaders who fought in the revolution in particular and who pushed most forcefully for seperation from the UK, wanted the US to have a strong central government rather than a devolved one. Clearly, this is against what we have called conservatism.

    On the other side, the political party that rose up which was filled with many people who were on the younger side of the first generation of American political leaders were the anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson. Classically, as we learn in school, he pushed against things like a Hamliton-like financial system, centrality of state power, and pushed for more power to the States and protection of American agrarian culture from creeping industralizaiton. This is more in keeping with what we call Conservatism.

    The Federalists foreign political alignment fell largely with the United Kingdom... but the Anti-Federalists, which are more politically aligned with modern conservatism? France. Not the British.

    As we know from school, the Federalist party declined and disintegrated and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party formed from the anti-Federalists. And it is the ultimate progenitor of both the Democratic Party (of Andrew Jackason) and the Republican Party (although the name each took was not directly adopted from that).

    The politics of that era are entirely different from today's. Except in the broadest sense of what should the balance of power be between State and federal, there is essentially no political philosophical legacy that has been passed down through the past 200 years.

    You have to go about 80 years later to see the outlines - and it is really the broadest outlines - of conservatism and liberalism as we know it start to take shape. One thing in particular shifted things forward to make politics begin a path to a modern form: industralization.

    American has never had a major Labor party. Other countries did. The UK for example had competing Liberal and Conservative Parties until the Liberal Party fell into ruin and was replaced in the early 20th century by the Labour Party as the party of the "political left" (something of a new concept then). Other countries has workers parties or socialist parties or communist parties.

    It was not for lack of trying here. American workers parties tried to get off the ground but as America got wealthier and more urban and the labor force shifted into factories from farmlands, the politics changed and the seeds of modern liberal/conservative politcs were planted. The transitionary period was the Progressive era of the early 20th century in which politics was frankly, a mess in the modern desire of clean dividing lines. But by the mid 1920s you had a party friendly to labor and a party friendly to business. Democrat and republican. That was not ordained by god or anything. That's an emergent property of a lot of worker voters voting their interests, and political parties aligning for or against that.

    But even then it wasn't neat. Massachusetts was the Republican intellectual heartland for generations. Hell, it still has its echoes in the 21st century. It was a major industrial power and despite being Republican dominated, what we would call "progressive" on workers issues. And that's because politics of the mid 20th century in this country was coalition based. Both Republican and Democratic Parties had vast and unnatural political associations within them that overtime came apart. We like to say the Southern Strategy created the modern Republican Party, but that really undersells that, in terms of coalition politics, there was no way the Dixiecrats were going to stick around with the Democrats who voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act.

    If we want to look carefully at where modern conservatism came from, it really depends what we're talking about.

    The Conservatism of Eisenhower, Nixon and George H.W. Bush was born in their experiences of World War II. It took elements of pre-War Republican Party conservatism and refined it around the post-war national security/economic consensus. This conservatism was laid low by Watergate, pushed into a supporting role under Reagan and finally made extinct by the defeat of HW in 1992 and the Republican Revolution of the 1994 mid-terms.

    The Conservatism of Reagan, W, and Mitt Romney is ultimately Barry Goldwater's Republicanism. It was born out of his 1964 Presidential campaign, which was a route Goldwater cultivated -- the social conservatism and made new allies in the 1970s and 1980s out of the religious movement (it's hugely interesting and complicated how this happened... TV played a major role). It reached its ascendency under Reagan and locked it via the 1994 mid-terms. It began it's death spiral in the 2010 midterms and was killed in the 2016 Presidential election. The Tea Party murdered it, but they had an assist.

    What about Trump's Conservatism? Ultimately the nationalist right wing orgy with Tea Party people and know-nothingers arose starting in 2010 because the Iraq War and Obama's success destroyed the last of the credibility of Reaganite Conservative leaders. Here's the thing: it's always been there. Eisenhower, Nixon and Goldwater personally worked to keep that strain of conservatism under lock and key. It's a mutated form of the pre-World War II conservatism. The conservatism that wanted to keep us out of the war and was even partial to Germany (for largely economic reasons). But even if you call that "what conservatism is now", we're still talking about something whose uttermost source is reasonably somewhere in the Progressive era, when the dividing lines of workers rights and the role of government regulation in a modernizing country started to be the battlefield on which all politics were fought.

    Claiming that politics, or a political party, hasn't changed since monarchy is selling it too short. Look over the last 250 years. Slavery ended. The Southern Strategy happened. If asked in 1980, or 1996, would Democrats have said gay marriage was a hill they wanted to die on? Or net neutrality/Section 230, which are only now making their presence truly public?

    The Republican Party has followed a long and winding road from the Party of Lincoln to the Party Trump Burned Down and Cheeto'd the Earth. "Conservative" or not, at some point, the problem with the people in the party is...the people in the party, not those who died 25, 50, 200 years ago.

    Let's ready ourselves for the battle at hand, using modern weapons for modern targets, and leave the black powder in the museum.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Then i suggest you start preparing for a new civil war. And i think your chances are for winning a war are slim.
    Feel free to get fucked you jackboot thug.


    Infracted.
    Last edited by Flarelaine; 2021-01-01 at 07:00 AM. Reason: Flaming

  15. #95
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    Funny enough and correct me if I'm wrong Canada actually has some bigger problems than the US due to it's size in terms of providing universal care. I use Montana as a reference because it's where my family is from but it's that time 10000x. And they pull it off reasonably well. Certainly better than US healthcare.
    Pretty much. A lot of people like to argue that the USA is different, because it's population is so huge. And that's true, but it's different the other way around; higher populations mean economies of scale work better for you, pushing costs down, not up. Density of population minimizes travel time and how distributed your network needs to functionally be, which further reduces costs. Clinics in extreme locations generally need to have better resources available to them than a comparable clinic in a suburb of a bigger city, because while they'll still airlift serious cases to major hospitals, they still have to stabilize them well enough for that transit beforehand.

    I usually don't bring this up unless it gets brought up for me, usually by someone claiming that the USA is uniquely difficult in some manner for healthcare (when it seriously isn't).


  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    And the problem is the well paying industrial jobs in rust belt got decimated under Obama.
    You mean the Obama that rescued the automotive industry?

    Also...long term trends are long term trends.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I usually don't bring this up unless it gets brought up for me, usually by someone claiming that the USA is uniquely difficult in some manner for healthcare (when it seriously isn't).
    And once you smack down their "we're too big" argument, they bring up "we're too diverse," as though admitting that the country is too racist to take care of each other is any sort of reasonable argument.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by DKjaigen View Post
    Good job on wasting your time
    Is this your way of admitting you just had your ass handed to you, and you don't care, because you are only here to push lies?

    Or, are you admitting to trolling?

  18. #98
    Are most Republicans populists? Are most Democrats?
    "You see, there is balance in all things. Wisdom etched in our very fur: Black and white. Darkness and light. When the last emperor hid our land from the rest of the world, he also preserved...our ancient enemy, the mantid. So it is with your Alliance and your Horde. They are not strong despite one another; they are strong BECAUSE of one another. You mistake your greatest strength for weakness. Do you see this?"

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by OwenBurton View Post
    Are most Republicans populists? Are most Democrats?
    Yes and no.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This is not exactly so carved in stone. *snip*
    Not bad...(apologies for the snip, it was a bit long)
    I personally favor mentioning both Roosevelts since they had different labels but similar, if not identical ideologies. I also would have added William F. Buckley with Goldwater for the prior "modern" conservative movement as he was what they represented then; the intellectual elite...and he was one hell of a wordsmith..and funny and can even admit when he was wrong. (Quite the contrast today).
    But a pretty good read for all that.
    Last edited by Shadowferal; 2021-01-01 at 12:50 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •