>>689750375
Agreed, faggot.

When Clinton is elected President in November, I will be severely depressed.

just the fact that Trump is the nominee is a disgrace.

I would have been ecstatic for Rand
I would have been happy with Paul Ryan

I would have voted for Romney, Bush, Walker, Kasich

>>689750375
Agreed

>At least VP

File: 1460741447429.gif (2 MB, 235x180) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 235x180

This country is doomed. Get over it.

>>689750375
he's not right-wing because people are sick of Obama; he's right-wing because the libertarian platform is closer to the reps than the dems.

Rand is nothing more than a crazier version of his father; his heart's in the right place, but he supports policies that a century out of date and would effectively cripple the US both domestically and in the international scene.

That said, I'd take rand over drumpf or shillary any day.

>>689752906
>he's right-wing because the libertarian platform is closer to the reps than the dems.

That has actually always been the case, but it is incorrect. America began as a libertarian and a right-wing country. In Europe, Marx was also libertarian, almost anarchist. But Lenin and Stalin and other communists *PAINTED* libertarianism with a right-wing brush in order to justify a high government control, and they gave the people equality in exchange for that control.

But that doesn't mean libertarianism is right-win.g It could as well be to the left.

>but he supports policies that a century out of date and would effectively cripple the US both domestically and in the international scene.

So, that's why Trump isn't the nominee, huh? Remember, they said Trump's presidency would blow over. It seems it isn't. He just has the right level of mental retardation that Ron Paul and Rand Paul never had. But the ideas are basically the same.

>>689750375
>people are sick of a rigged system
Trump

>>689753598
>That has actually always been the case, but it is incorrect.
??

>America began as a libertarian and a right-wing country.
America did begin as a libertarian country, but not right-wing. Until Reaganomics, the US was fairly liberal compared to most of the rest of the first world.

>In Europe, Marx was also libertarian, almost anarchist. But Lenin and Stalin and other communists *PAINTED* libertarianism with a right-wing brush in order to justify a high government control, and they gave the people equality in exchange for that control
unrelated to the discussion at hand. maybe you got overexcited, but considering this is a political thread, I have to assume this is a distraction tactic.

>But that doesn't mean libertarianism is right-win.g It could as well be to the left.
this is true, but it's pretty much true for any political ideal. It all depends on the current state of politics. Since Rand wasn't running 240 years ago, he is right-wing because he more strongly aligns with the conservative agenda.

>So, that's why Trump isn't the nominee, huh? Remember, they said Trump's presidency would blow over. It seems it isn't. He just has the right level of mental retardation that Ron Paul and Rand Paul never had. But the ideas are basically the same.
no idea why you brought trump into this in response to a criticism of rand's policy instead of trying to defend the merits of extreme libertarianism. again, I have to assume this is a tactic meant to redirect attention from the fact that rand's policies are not good.

>>689754975
>not right-wing
>slavery, women can't vote
Pick one, faggot.

> I have to assume this is a distraction tactic.
Not really. I was, in fact, explaining *why* you believe being right-wing is linked to libertarianism. Spoiler alert, it isn't. It just so happened that they happened both in the beginning.

>this is true
Exaclty, thank you.

>no idea why you brought trump into this
>failing to see Trump is basically like Rand, only shittier
Typical Trump supporter. Has the good ideas, but is an idiot.

>>689755821
can only assume you're trolling at this point. since you clearly don't understand what 'right-wing' means, i'll just leave you to your empty thread. hope you enjoy not having a valid candidate as much as the rest of us do; we're all fucked together, but i'm beginning to think that you might just deserve it.

>>689756218
I really think you're bullshitting me. Are you saying that Trump and Rand are not both right-wing?

>>689752906
>Rand is nothing more than a crazier version of his father
I guess it's pretty crazy to believe in individual rights and freedom over government control and political correctness. At least nowadays.

>>689756576
yea. when those individual 'rights' and 'freedoms' prevent social progress, it is crazy. what kind of selfish asshole willingly halts cultural growth because they just can't live day to day without calling someone nigger or faggot? get over your self-important edgelord bullshit and join the 21st century!

File: jan_itor_cum_bucket.jpg (95 KB, 1183x778) Image search: [Google]

95 KB, 1183x778

These are excerpts from the Libertarian party principles:

>We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

>They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Who exactly on /b/ is against these ideas?

https://www.lp.org/platform

>>689753598
>America began as a libertarian and a right-wing country


The 2nd law ever passed by Congress was a protectionist tariff.
Tariff of 1789.
Tariffs are not libertarian.

>implying we have control over who gets elected

File: paul_burgin.jpg (56 KB, 450x600) Image search: [Google]

56 KB, 450x600

I know that feel, OP. He was smart enough to drop out of the race this year because he saw how bad it was going to get. Hopefully he runs again next time and helps fix whatever shit Hillary/Trump gets us into.

>>689757610

It's the only party that...

>doesn't care what gay people do
>doesn't mind abortion
>doesn't mind having guns
>doesn't care if you want to take drugs
>doesn't care if your aunt jeniqua is "too fat to work" and needs food stamps
>doesn't care if you want to worship satan, jesus, or nothing at all
>wants a strong military for DOMESTIC defense, not corraling rampant africans and rebuilding shitty middle east puppet gov'ts
>wants low taxes

>wants personal. fucking. responsibility.

Take care of your own shitty life, and not what MSNBC or Fox News tell you to care about.

His ideology is impractical. It has no significance in the real world. I used to be a libertarian, and sure, when all you do is read and think to yourself it makes a lot of sense, but when you get out in the real world and see how things actually work, a libertarian society would essentially become a third world povern shithole.

You're really gonna knock 5.5 million schizophrenias and bipolars off SSI and medicaid (and hence their medications) because it's social spending? And then what?

You really think that church-based charity services are going to feed the 12 million people in this country who rely on food benefits?

You really think young people are going to have the foresight -- or the ability / opportunity -- to save for their own retirement?

I could go on and on, ad infinitum.

>>689757610
I do. free-market economics is a broken concept. individuals won't refuse to support vendors who behave inappropriately, so the idea that the market regulates itself is misguided. industries won't regulate themselves; that's been proven time and again by the telecom, agri, oil, and various other industries. without intervention, freemarket results in extreme disparity of wealth where the majority of people suffer under the rule of an elite few.

>>689758763
>implying I don't realize you are literally Rand Paul
When did you find out about /b/, sir?

>>689758910
this a gajillion times over.

the lp has some very good points, but they're too adamant about too many extreme ideas.

>>689750375

Rand is NOT Ron. You're about 4 years late to jump on the Paul bandwagon, that ship has sailed. Rand is a silly liberal cuckold who is going along to get along with the establishment while riding the coat-tails of his fathers name.

>>689758910
And most importantly, do you think all the people who get fucked over by that all that -- the mentally ill off meds, the elderly who didn't save for their retirement, etc -- are going to just fuck off and die with respect to the "winners"? Hell no. It's called civil war. Win or lose, it'd tear this country apart and make us vulnerable to our FUCK LOADS of foreign enemies.

This is reality. Your libertarian stuff is just blahblahblahblahblahblah

>>689757458
Please kill yourself, you pathetic loser. You are exactly why people like Barack Obama and Hilliary Clinton are running this country into the ground.

>>689758910
>"his ideology is impractical"
>votes for somebody who wants to build a wall, deport 12 million people, ban an entire religion
Are you fucking retarded? Go kill yourself!

>>689758910
>You really think that church-based charity services are going to feed the 12 million people in this country who rely on food benefits?

Nope. We are hoping that those degenerates and defectives will starve instead of breeding litters of carbon copies of themselves.

If YOU want to adopt some violent, stupid, and unemployable nigger, don't let me stop you, but don't make me feed your fucking pets for you.

>>689758910
>You really think young people are going to have the foresight -- or the ability / opportunity -- to save for their own retirement?

They did up until very recently, and responsible people still do so. Of course barring theft through inflation and punitive graduated income tax it would be far easier.

Again, if you want to adopt somebody who lived nigger rich their whole life and care for them in their old age, don't let me hold you back, but don't expect me to want to pay for your low-effort moral preening and virtue signalling.

>>689757458
I hope for your future that you are trolling us through your teeth right now. If not, then may god have mercy on your soul.

>>689759755
>hates the fact that other people can do better than he can alone
>blames the gubment because it can't be his fault
if you want to go through life without anyone else's help and without helping anyone else, then go do it by yourself. fuck off to some deserted island and die from exposure, disease, or natural disaster because you didn't have any societal structure to fall back on when shit hit the fan.

>>689759373
>And most importantly, do you think all the people who get fucked over by that all that -- the mentally ill off meds, the elderly who didn't save for their retirement, etc -- are going to just fuck off and die with respect to the "winners"? Hell no. It's called civil war. Win or lose, it'd tear this country apart and make us vulnerable to our FUCK LOADS of foreign enemies.
>>689760113
>Nope. We are hoping that those degenerates and defectives will starve instead of breeding litters of carbon copies of themselves.

>If YOU want to adopt some violent, stupid, and unemployable nigger, don't let me stop you, but don't make me feed your fucking pets for you.

>>689760677
This is statism stage4, final and incurable.
It's when the sheep say "Well, if you're not strong enough to face a totalitarian government and come out alive and well, then that's natural selection taking its course."

>>689760986
>>Nope. We are hoping that those degenerates and defectives will starve instead of...
Exactly.
>hoping

RAND PAUL IS REAGAN 2.0. JUST WAIT FOR 2020

>>689760113
>We are hoping that those degenerates and defectives will starve
Then you're going to come to my neighborhood and clean the bodies off the streets?

>They did up until very recently, and responsible people still do so.
some did, and some still do. plenty didn't, and that lack of regulation led to the great depression, hoovervilles, and a number of other social disasters. too many people won't take care of themselves, and the result is that other suffer for their mistakes (inb4 you claim that if there wasn't social welfare we wouldn't suffer. yes we would, read the post you fucking moron). to alleviate this, we instituted policies that, at a much lower cost than dealing with the problems after the fact, prevent this type of irresponsible behavior.

all of the above assumes you're a heartless bastard who doesn't give a fuck about anyone but yourself. if that's not true, then why not help out people who need it.

>This is statism stage4
that implies that i have resigned myself to the status quo. I have not. I fully support the idea that by living together, we can do better than by living alone. the whims of the few should never outweigh the interest of the masses.

>RAND PAUL IS REAGAN 2.0. JUST WAIT FOR 2020
Reagan's economic policies nearly destroyed this country 20 years later. Just like Clinton's. They both got to the oval office at a period where the economy was set to boom, overstressed it to build political support, and then sat back and watched as their actions led to serious economic turmoil. I'm not saying they tried to fuck us, but for the love of god, stop pushing reagan like he's some sort of infallible political deity.

>>689758944
Every other Libertarian principle is good. 50/100

>>689760677
I hope this is bait because if not you are seriously an idiot.

>>689762396
and there's that quality intellect that's gotten us to the trump vs clinton election. just because you don't agree or understand something doesn't make the other person an idiot; more often, it's a good sign that you're the one who's not very smart.

>>689754975
>>689753796
>>689753598
>>689752906
You are all squabbling bags of dog feces. I have a degree in political science and am in my final year of law school at William & Mary. You are mentally fucking retarded.

>>689762340
nah, the lp is fucked on their lack of social funding too. this isn't uae or qatar; we don't want first-world slavery and poor people dying in the streets

>>689763249
are you also a navy seal?

>>689750375

I bought a house well out of town, and have been stocking up on supplies.

I suggest you do the same.

>secede

>>689763225
>just because you don't agree or understand something doesn't make the other person an idiot

Oh boy....
That's not what makes you an idiot, and the fact that you even said that further proves your idiocy. Seriously, that's what stupid people say when they have nothing of substance to contribute.

>just cuz u disagree wiht me doeznt make me an ideeit it maks YUO an idiat!!!!!1

>>689763752
leech.

>>689750375
>libertarian
>conservative
>can't find any flaws
My sides

File: 1464551490650.gif (2 MB, 320x240) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 320x240

>>689750375

Libertarianism is fucking retarded. Want to see a what a country looks like without goverbment oversight? The america in the late 19th century and you'll find the robber barons stealing this country blind and creating working conditions close to slave labor.

Fuck out of here

>>689763972
> have nothing of substance
I've made my substantive arguments. you're the one who threw out your strawman argument

> if this isn't trolling then you're dumb!
if you have a valid counterpoint the attack my claims based on their merit, not just the fact that you don't agree... just saying 'troll or idiot' makes me think that you don't have any real arguments. if you do, you're doing a very poor job of making them.

Libertarianism is anarchy for cowards.

>>689758910
You're not wrong in the sense that it would be chaotic in the beginning.

But the problem is that over the generations people have become more dependent on social services. And by "dependent", I don't mean economically, but culturally.

This is a prime example of what I mean:

>You really think young people are going to have the foresight -- or the ability / opportunity -- to save for their own retirement?

No, they won't. Not the last couple of entitled, babied generations.

However, that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll just increase SS benefits forever until the moon crashes into the fucking earth".

We need to re-train people to start taking responsibility for themselves.

>You really think that church-based charity services are going to feed the 12 million people in this country who rely on food benefits?

And there doesn't NEED to be 12 million people on food benefits. Yes, some of them are genuine hard luck cases that physically/mentally can't work. But a huge fucking number of those are just people scamming the system and/or being lazy. You know how many people I've seen on permanent disability for a back injury (medical field). You know how many of them could get desk jobs? 99%. But "I'm entitled to be a roofer, and I can't roof, so I'll do nothing". Fuck those people. Fuck them hard.

>>689763541
Agreed. I like half of the Libertarian policies. Lack of social safety net is one of the every other Libertarian policies that I do not like.

>>689765295
>You know how many of them could get desk jobs? 99%.
show me one reliable study to support this ridiculous claim. fuck it, show me a study that supports the idea that 50% of people on disability turned down a job opportunity that would have paid them a living wage. because you can't just sit and draw unemployment or disability benefits; you have to show that you're incapable of getting a job or trying to get a job.

>>689750375
i wouldnt say that trump is any version of rand
cruz is the retarded version of rand

rand is the best candidate to appear in the last 4 elections.
i like him even more than his father because of his willingness to compromise in order to take a step in the right direction

>>689765295
con't

Look, it's not like a LP president would immediately and magically cause SSI benefits to be revoked, the military to retract from foreign affairs, and take away La'dasha's food stamps.

It wouldn't cause chaos in the streets.

But for anyone looking to "shake things up" and "break the status quo", a wall-building racist fraud con man is a far worse choice than someone committed to individual responsibility and non-ridiculous spending. And needless to say a bland, predictable, conniving woman isn't any better.

>>689750375
Every country has the government it deserves.

>>689766110
>take away La'dasha's food stamps
damnit anon. i wanted so badly to be on your side until that ignorant shit; there are more white people on welfare than the combined total of all minority groups. I realize i'm a racist for assuming that La'dasha is black, but can you honestly tell me that you weren't thinking about a black woman when you typed that?

in all seriousness though, this is the most cogent argument i've seen on this thread for supporting a radical libertarian. rand couldn't achieve 10% of his platform in office, so it's not like he'd do much real harm; he could, and likely would, however, make some much needed changes in the national thought process that would push us toward a much more practical and effective liberalism. 16 or 24 years of libertarianism would destroy this country, but 4 or 8 would probably be a very positive thing.

ITT Rand Paul fan who doesn't know who Ron Paul is

Libertarians don't win elections
Their only purpose is to demonstrate how retarded objectivism is. Ayn Rand was a fool, and so is Rand Paul

Apparently all the Americans that voted for trump do, large percent

>>689757458
>freedom of speech is preventing social progress
redcoat detected

>>689750375
>libertarian
>forced birther

Choose.

>>689750375
he was legit the only person I would ever consider voting for

>>689766803
>I realize I'm racist for assuming Ladasha is black


Lol holy shit dude, go ask your Bulls gf to buy you a new chastity cage

>>689758944
Maybe back in the day, but you are telling me, what woth people ddos ing people to hell for simple infractions like shooting a lion, we cant hold corporations accountable. That is incredibly ignorant man. We can control the market with our wallet and our voices, we dont need daddy government to protect us 100%

>>689750375
>He is libertarian because people are sick of a rigged system.
So instead, libertarians are going to run gary johnson to the election to split the republican vote and the democrats will win again.
>If you can't beat 'em, make sure you can't.

>>689767870
can and will are completely separate things. we could burn everything down and live in caves. literally, they couldn't stop us if we really decided to. but we won't. we're too placid. we'll let huge corporations walk all over us because we don't believe we can do anything. it's why we pay some of the highest fees for some of the shittiest internet in the first world; because we just don't care enough to protect ourselves. you're arguing the ideal instead of addressing the reality.

File: 933.jpg (72 KB, 669x664) Image search: [Google]

72 KB, 669x664

>>689757458
>get over your self-important edgelord bullshit and join the 21st century!

>>689767468
>you said a thing, but since I can't argue against it, I'll just hyperbolize it until it sounds like something I can.
did we let hillary on /b?

>>689750375
Agreed anon.. his father would be nice too

>>689768266
We dont do anything because we have been pacified to believe the government will do it.
Here is a fun test, go outside right now and ask people on the street if they think the internet is government owned. And tell me the result, i had a guy tell me in line at walmart that he couldnt believe the governnent only allows them to keep two registers open. Lol wut? People are so conditioned to believe the government will come to their rescue, they are placid. Once it is known that hey, you are the master of yourself, people better get with it or fail.

>>689768320
nice meme. way to really express YOUR own opinion

I'm not saying nobody else can have an opinion; i'm saying that some opinions are less productive than others, and I'd prefer those people who have those shitty opinions keep them to themselves. They're certainly entitled to make asses of themselves by sharing those opinions, but i'm also entitled to call them on their bullshit, just like you're entitled to call me on mine. I just don't use some shittily drawn cartoon to do it.

>>689766803
That's all I'm saying.

It would quite literally be a generations-long process to move to LP ideals without causing a civil war/revolution/chaos/etc. But gradually electing more and more LP candidates is the way to do that.

Anyhow, I'm actually a moderate. I'm fine with gay marriage (but doesn't effect me so I don't get worked up about it), I own a gun but don't make it a lifestyle choice, I'm for personal decisions in abortion, I'm an atheist but could give a crap what others want to believe, I want a strong military primarily for defense, I don't do drugs on a regular basis but if I want to take some oxy or snort some coke at a party then I will (and have)... I could go on. But I don't care to push these things on others. Let them do what they want, I'll do what I want.

My point being that the LP party happens to fit my core beliefs/way of life best. The dems and GOP get some things right, but I feel like an outsider to both. I can't get angry about the things they get angry about (for the most part).

And despite my other comment (yes, La'dasha was black in my mind) and my being on /b/, I'm not a racist. I could have just as easily put Billy-Jo-Bob Wellington the Third, but I felt that La'dasha was more likely to get a kek.

>>689768945
>a lefty calling out anyone for using slogans & pictures to express their opinion
wew lad

>>689768884
>We dont do anything because we have been pacified to believe the government will do it
other than the one story that you just made up, I'd like to see some valid evidence of this. Personally, the people i know think that the government can't be stopped from fucking everything up, not that they'll protect us and our interests; hell, I don't know anyone who thought the FCC would actually push for title 2 instead of just cowing to big business.

>people better get with it or fail.
why would I support a system that lets people fail? if you let people fail, then you failed. with the affluence and technology available to us, there's no excuse to let anyone fall by the wayside. if you're okay with watching other people's lives fall apart because 'they deserve it', then you're a selfish asshole.

>>689769407
>a hypocrite using someone else's art to defend their right to express their opinion
kek

>>689769201
But here's the thing, and the last point I'll make:

I can either not vote at all, because I don't want either Trump or Hillary as my president.

Or I can vote for a candidate whose party best represents me, even if I'm throwing that vote away.

I'll do the latter, because then at least I don't feel like a passive douche with no right to complain about the man or woman I'm stuck with.

But we (the American people) should never vote for a candidate simply because they're the lesser of 2 evils. If no candidate or party suits your desires, then write someone in, or by all means be the passive douche that abstains completely.

>>689769691
How am i selfish because i want people to be productive and to succeed on their own? To not be tied down to government benefits which are incredibly hard to get away from? People fail, it happens. To try and make everyone equal, makes everyone fail because a chain is only as stronger as its weakest link. I would rather have a huge gap between the rich and the poor, with the poor being richer than most of the world, than have everyone be poor. Disparity happens, nothing is equal, and it is a fairytail people tell their children so they can sleep at night. What is stopping you right now from helping the disenfranchised? Why must we turn charity into taxation? There is nothing altruistic about that, it isnt righteous.

>>689769869
ready for an unpopular opinion?

I refuse to vote, and I refuse to give up my political opinions.

before you crucify me, hear me out. our system is rigged, so I don't believe that my vote matters in the elections that I know enough about to trust my opinion. I'm too lazy to get informed about local elections where my vote might make a difference, and I think uninformed voters are a huge part of the election process right now, so I don't vote in those elections either.

now, let the hate rain down and cleanse me of my shame

>>689770644
I am OP, and given the situation, I'm not going to vote either. I voted for Clinton 2 times and Gore one time, and then I haven't voted since because if a candidate doesn't motivate me, then I couldn't sleep at night knowing I voted for them.

>>689762112
>Then you're going to come to my neighborhood and clean the bodies off the streets?

Why is it MY responsibility to take care of you and your neighbors? I'll take care of me and mine you take care of you and yours. Also I didn't say you can't adopt as many pets as you like. Your big hearted generosity only goes as far as spending MY money. Typical Marxist.

>>689762112
>that lack of regulation led to the great depression

No. Manipulations in money supply is what causes EVERY boom and bust cycle in macro economics. The creation of a welfare state and consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few was the desired outcome, never the cause.

>>689762112
>why not help out people who need it.

Why don't you, fuckwit? You don't know me nor what charity I do for those I deem needy. Why is it that you collectivist types always want to prove your virtue by giving away only the things that don't belong to you? Spending someone else's hard earned money to feel good about yourself is very sick.

>>689762112
>Reagan's economic policies

The president of the United States does not have the power to lay or collect any tax nor does he have the power to spend even one penny from the public coffers.

You, sir, are a fucking simpleton, immoral, and don't have the first clue about how the American system of government is designed. Fuck off and educate yourself while the adults talk about big boy things.

>>689770457
> I would rather have a huge gap between the rich and the poor, with the poor being richer than most of the world
then you ought to be thrilled. but trickle-down economics has been shown to be a fallacy

nobody said everyone should be equal, but there's a difference between inequality and unfairness. there will always be some people who have less than others, but there's no excuse for anyone to not have enough to get by.

i won't claim that the government does the best job of providing a safety net, or even that they do a very good job. I will argue, though, that having a safety net in place is important. the happiest nations in the world aren't libertarian havens, they're near socialist, and the people are happy because they don't have to worry about losing their house because their bank sneakily changed their mortgage or dying because they can't get medical care, and they're happy because the people around them don't have to worry about these things either.

>>689750375
No thanks. He agreed with Obama 2 or 3 times.He also said a nice thing about him once or twice.

>>689764241

So you mean created conditions which led to the greatest advances in technology and civilization the world has ever seen?

Back when 10 dollars was actually half an ounce of gold?

Sounds good to me.

>>689765295
>12 million people on food benefits

The dirty little secret is that the food "benefit" programs "benefit" only big agra business and the multinational banking cartels that make a fee plus percentage processing each and every EBT transaction. Finally corporate welfare that liberals just love.

File: Harvey Birdman01.jpg (8 KB, 190x266) Image search: [Google]

8 KB, 190x266

Libertarianism is just BS smokescreen. Having a smaller, weaker, decentralized Gov't is a non-starter for the U.S. Weak, decentralized U.S. gov't = China gobbles up the Pacific and Russia grabs more of Europe, and then they both laugh at the U.S. as they crush our interests around the world. No country would take the U.S. seriously. Only clueless morons think Libertarian is the way to go.
What's that you say? We can just increase defense spending while cutting the civil side? What utter dick shit stupidity. Can you say military coup? Every fucking country with a strong military and a weak civil gov't is ripe for the military to take over.
You love liberty and freedom? Great. We can have that with a strong central gov't protecting everyone's rights.
You want small gov't and lower taxes? Fucking idiot and nobody believes the Libertarian angle bullshit.

>>689771350
>happiest nations are socialist
Conviently they also take the most anti depressants, and have high suicide rates so...
So you would rather everybody be poor but have certain things covered for them? Wow, you do understand that they world we have today was made because of non socialist polocies right? Everybody has enough to get by, sorry most people. Do i feel we should take better care of the mentally handicapped and ill? Yes. But if you remove them, the homeless population is close to nil in the states. We have the cheapest food in the world. Also that whole bank example, you can thank the beauacrats in washington for allowing that.

File: glorious haired owl.jpg (6 KB, 197x255) Image search: [Google]

6 KB, 197x255

>>689750375
HEY PEDERAST. TRUMP IS IN IT TO WIN IT. PERIOD. ELECTION'S DONE. TRUMP WON. IT'S ALL FORMALIES NOW.

GET IT?

>>689766803
>there are more white people on welfare than the combined total of all minority groups.

Perhaps this year in school you'll learn about percentages.

>>689771350
>inequality and unfairness

Inequality is if you have more than someone else, unfairness is when someone else has more than you... regardless of talent, ability or effort, of course.

Typical man-child socialist's rhetoric, and very transparent.

>>689771230
> you take care of you and yours.
I do. by supporting policy that promotes social well-being

>Your big hearted generosity only goes as far as spending MY money.
1) fuck off with that shit. you don't know a thing about me. you don't know that I spend my time (which, as a freelance developer is directly equivalent to my money) in the winter serving at soup kitchens and in the summer handing out bottled water. you don't know that I spend an extra 10-20% every time I go to the grocery store so I have something to give to the food pantry. you don't know that people help other people, because you don't help other people.
2. YOUR money was earned as a direct result of the society in which you live. sure, you're entitled to a lot of it. but all of us are entitled some of it too, since we all built the system that you used to get it.

> Manipulations in money supply is what causes EVERY boom and bust cycle in macro economics.
this is objectively incorrect. a LOT of boom/bust situations result from market manipulation, but the manipulations that caused the great depression wouldn't have been possible under the current market regulations

>Why is it that you collectivist types always want to prove your virtue by giving away only the things that don't belong to you?
why is it you always assume that i'm not willing to give just as much as I'm asking the next guy to give? everyone's always taking from YOUR money from YOU. ever notice how every point you make comes back to YOUR interests and nobody else's? that's why I said you're selfish.

> immoral
that's just unfounded.

>Fuck off and educate yourself while the adults talk about big boy things.
read an economics textbook written in the last 5 years and then tell me how much or little the president affects the economy. There's more to money than just taxes; but you already know that right?

> don't have the first clue about how the American system of government is designed.
lul

>>689772367
Can you not be condescending please.

>>689772174
the world we have today was also built using horse-drawn carriages. times change, people change, the situation changes. just because something was a good idea TWO HUNDRED years ago doesn't mean it's the right answer now.

>>689772367
Oh, I can use percentages. More than 50% of the people taking advantage of social welfare programs in the US are white. With or without the number, it's still true.

>>689750375
you are literally autistic

>>689773798
So you are saying teachings from any time that isnt contemporary, arent a good source of knowledge? I dont understand? Most of the political leanings people have were fleshed out hundreds of years ago. Your argument is juvenile

>>689774004
lmao

>>689773071
you can't just redefine words to make them say what you want. inequality means that people and their situations are different. unfairness means that some people are prevented from improving their situation by others who exacerbate inequality by keeping the poor in poverty.

call me all the names you want; it doesn't make me wrong. it just makes you look like an angry child who's losing an argument.

>>689774466
Who is keeping people in poverty? Who? I have an amswer, maybe its the government with their hard to get out of "safety net" programs? Ever think of that? Maybe the big baddie, is the same people you entrust to run this social safety net.

>>689774287
No, I'm saying that 'It worked then' is not a valid argument for doing it again. It's a very good reason to consider it as an option, but it's no excuse for not exploring other options that weren't on the table 200 years ago. I don't understand why you think I was saying we shouldn't do anything like we've ever done it before. Maybe I misspoke. What I meant was, 'Just because it used to work, doesn't mean that it still works. We should check to make sure it does before we just blindly continue doing it.' Sorry if I was confusing earlier.

>>689774769
Hm... maybe the banking cabal, who, using the arguments of 'freedom' have effectively bought the past half-dozen administrations?

>>689774819
Yes that is better, but riddle me this; if a program or style of government has worked in the past and has a valid track record, what arguments do you have against it? This nordic socialism hasnt been around for that long, yet people want to jump on it. It is still being road tested, it is still a prototype, why jump on something that we have no idea if it will play out in the long run? Also believe it or not, america is not comparable to other countries.

File: hahahahastupid cucks.jpg (72 KB, 631x633) Image search: [Google]

72 KB, 631x633

>>689750375
get on trumps dick faggots

>>689775054
Hmm, maybe if they didnt have the enabler government it wouldnt happen? Hmmm.

>>689775335
Awesome

>>689774004
you do understand that whites make over 70% of the population right?

so whites is welfare are actually under represented

>>689758763
This

>>689775257
I'd argue that the current system in the US doesn't have a valid track record. We're spending more on corporate welfare than ever in the past, we've got more people (both absolutely and per capita) living in poverty than any time in the last 75 years, and we're about to elect 1 of 2 candidates that, as far as I can tell, nobody wants to vote for. I'd say it's high time we reevaluated the way we do things.

I agree that the level of socialism possible in smaller, less industrial countries is probably not a good fit for the US, but we should try to see why what they're doing is working and figure out a way to adapt it to something that will work for us.

And just to pick a knit, I agree that you can't compare a hemisphere's worth of continents to a country. You can, however, compare the US to other countries so long as you also contrast the US to those other countries. No two political entities are the same, but, in the same way, no political entity is entirely novel either.

>>689775378
that's a lot of hmmmms

But you're right, if we had stronger regulations that favored the individual over big business, then it wouldn't happen; at least not as much. But the LP platform is against the kind of regulations that we need to reign in those companies, which is the argument I've been making from the start.

>>689775981
Funny how we were talking about 200 years ago, and now you bring up today. I also feel the CURRENT system, as you said, does not have a track record and we should get rid of it. In regards to the socialist countries though, it doesnt get easier to bigger you get. My suggestion is to limit our federal government and give the states more power. That way, you and i have more of a say. This way you can vote your state into a socialist utopia, and i can do the opposite. Treat our great nation how it was originally designed, as THESE united states of america, not the united states of america.

>>689775590
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/percentage-non-hispanic-whites-hits-all-time-63-article-1.1371772

63 is not greater than 70

but you're right, whites make up a smaller percentage of welfare recipients than they do percentage of the population

>>689776215
Which i have made the point that these regulations keep these companies from being punished. We are powerful as individuals, and unstoppable as a group. We can control these companies without government intervention.

>>689776601
I agree on paper, but in practice, states' rights don't work. That's why places like where I'm from (Arkansas, god help me), can get away with laws that allow religious discrimination, unwarranted evictions, and lots of other 'good-ole-boy' politics that do nothing but further disenfranchise groups that already face serious social discrimination. There's definitely no easy solution, but something being hard is not an excuse for half-assing it.

>>689776863
Then you're point is not correct. The LACK of proper regulation keeps these companies from being punished. And we only have the potential to be an unstoppable group; however, we've rarely exercised that potential in the past, and we haven't at all recently. Maybe it's because of government, but there's no more evidence to support that than to support the idea that it's because we've allowed corporations to take over. And those corporations couldn't have taken over if we'd stood up against Citizen's United. Could we have stopped it? Sure. Did we? Of course not.

>>689777153
You dont think if people were told, hey your state government now acts like a small country, that they wouldnt get more active in the process? You cant scream for change, and than expect it to happen without action taken. They try to do some bs voter id laws or other corrupt shit, you bring a class action lawsuit down on them and take them to the supreme Court. This is how we were designed, people need to get engaged. You cant scream disenfranchised, when you arent making an effort to change it.

>>689777587
Let me correct myself there; CU greatly furthered the corporate agenda in the US. It's not the only thing that's let them get where they are, and if we'd stopped CU, they'd have tried something else. The point is, we, the people, have had opportunity to rise up and change things, but we didn't.

>>689777779
I definitely think they would. I just don't think that would be a good thing. You'd have places like the deep south where it would be illegal to be Hispanic (kind of like it is in Arizona now) or where it would be illegal to be gay (like they're trying to do in AR and SC under the premise of religious freedom).

The problem with letting SCOTUS sort this shit out is that it takes them a decade, and, in the meantime, all sorts of ridiculous behavior that puts minority groups at a severe disadvantage becomes the norm, which makes it that much harder to correct in the long term.

>>689777587
Maybe its because you are extremely confused about what citizens united was about
http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2015/01/21/campaign-finance-myths-wendy-kaminer
Citizens united was actually a court case about hillary Clinton
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie
Sure it allowed shitty things, but it also was a huge victory for free speech.
Also wasnt it regulations that allowed the banks to fuck around with mortages? The same ones from 08?
The same regulations that allowed them to gamble, lose, and still make out like bandits?

>>689774769
>safety net keeps people down
This kind of retardation shows what you really think. That anyone who isn't doing well is just lazy. You live in a fantasy land where the world is actually just, but we make it unjust by helping people who should be homeless.

>>689778421
I understand time is a factor, but i highly doubt if people were engaged in the process they would let shit slide like this. This act in AR is happening because people arent engaged

>>689778705
If you honestly think the safety net isnt hard to escape, youve never been in it. Also i like how we have been pretty civil, but than you come it and have to attack. Please let the adults talk.

>>689778522
Maybe it's because you want to believe the best about your politicians and corporations.
http://www.demos.org/publication/10-ways-citizens-united-endangers-democracy

Campaign transparency was the carrot used to get the stick of unlimited campaign finance (and, by extension, corporate purchase of politicians) legalized.

And, yes, bad regulations allowed the banking failures that we've seen over the past decade. but no regulation is not the right answer. that's tantamount to saying 'i got food poisoning, so I'm never going to eat again'

>>689750375
You know I thought I was the only one who actually knew who this guy is

>>689750375
agree, he was the best candidate by far to come in a long time. no one seems to have his level of directness and honesty in politics, much less his intelligence

>>689779377
I want to believe that people want to be happy, and that treating adults like children is a great way to have civil unrest. Im not saying CU is perfect, but i would much rather have a freedom protected than regulated. Also i consider it more like i have food poisioning, im not eating bills waco taco shack again.

>>689778774
Maybe at large you're correct. Unfortunately, in AR, that law would be on the books even if we had 100% voter turnout. We live in a shitty backwater state where racism isn't just accepted, it's expected; when I leave family Christmas because my mother's husband starts in with nigger this and faggot that, I'm the bad guy. I'd leave if my job wasn't easy and everything wasn't so damn cheap. Honestly, I'm planning to leave in the next five years or so; I'm just waiting until I have my ducks in a row first.

But again, hopefully it's not that way everywhere (or anywhere) else.

>>689750375
this guy is not like his father, he is a turncoat

>>689779909
And they can't pass anything unconstitutional, what is the law is banning gay marriage, cant do that. Is it allowing churches to turn away gay couples? That is a bit gray, and honestly it shouldnt be forced on a church that doesmt wamt to do it.

>>689752095
kasich? really?

>>689766803
>>damnit anon. i wanted so badly to be on your side until that ignorant shit; there are more white people on welfare than the combined total of all minority groups. I realize i'm a racist for assuming that La'dasha is black, but can you honestly tell me that you weren't thinking about a black woman when you typed that?

As a social worker who has worked in several cities as a case worker who handled a lot of "food assistance" cases, I am wholeheartedly certain you are full of shit. Completely. 75% of those receiving "food assistance" are black. Easily.

Here's hoping you weren't serious.

>>689779875
Individuals do want to be happy; the problem is, too many of them want to be happy despite the fact that it might cost someone else their happiness. Big banks want to be happy, so they take advantage of poorly regulated systems in order to legally steal money from individuals; the bankers are happy.

>>689780221
No, it's a law that allows employers to deny or terminate employment based on, among other things, sexual preference and identity. Because being gay isn't very Christian, a Christian business owner can fire or not hire someone based on anything that conflicts with his religious beliefs.