Upload
Login or register
Highest Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
Latest users (2): akkere, lotengo, anonymous(3).
Anonymous comments allowed.
#113054 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
#113052 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
What exactly is the moral argument against universal health care?

The way I see it, tens of thousands of people die in the U.S every year because they can't afford their healthcare, and health care costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy in America. Aside from the fact that dead and bankrupt people stifle economic growth. Am I the only one that thinks its morally repulsive to just let so many people die or have their lives ruined because of health care costs when in so many other western countries it seems to work for them?

America seems to spend the most on health care, yet they don't even nearly get the best health care compared to other industrialized nations. So if universal health care is possible, what possible reason is there to be against it? I'd like for it to be a moral one, because personally the idea of tens of thousands of dying people and others going into debt all for the sake of freedom to be fucked leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. It seems like health care should be a right, and all other western countries are going down this path accept for the U.S. I wonder why? money muh nigga, of course I know why




Sources: though everything I mentioned is common knowledge to most political enthusiasts
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/

#113069 to #113052 - figatron ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Ask someone in Europe who can't get cancer treatments or have to wait years for surgeries because government won't give it to them or allow competition how it's working well for them
#113097 to #113069 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
This is only really true for elective surgery.
#113093 to #113069 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Good, with almost no wait.
#113063 to #113052 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/13/2016) [-]
instead of having government throw trillions of dollars at a broken system, you actually look at the causes of the problems with the US health system
let's name a few

--people use insurance for trivial things so they don't go out and search for the best prices. It would be like if you used car insurance for gas.
--our tax system is set up so that people get insurance through their employer which distorts markets
--under the guise of patient safety, government gives authority to regulate medicine to the AMA, which has turned the industry into a sort of cartel that can shut down competition, such as small clinics
--hospitals do not list prices, they determine a bill after the fact, so customers are essentially going in blind.
#113112 to #113063 - akkere
Reply 0
(04/14/2016) [-]
You can fix a few of these problems by switching to an ideal single-payer system instead of resorting to the blatant insurance-company pander we ended up with, which in turn creates dysfunctional bureaucratic functions like the AMA. It's because these insurance companies take so long to actually pay hospitals that results in infrequent and irregular prices to begin with as well.
Also, a problem with >>#113079 is the insurance companies that are set for making huge payouts will often try to find ways to avoid doing so. Disaster insurance companies are notorious for this; imagine having your house wiped out by a disaster with the only known comfort is that there'd be insurance money waiting at the end of all this, only to find that you now have to enter a legal battle in which the best-case scenario is you get 2/3 of the value you agreed upon.
#113115 to #113112 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/14/2016) [-]
I would be much more open to the idea if government were ideal, but it is not ideal. If you have a government insurance (but not hospitals) that cover catastrophic emergencies ONLY, and the had people pay for other things, like medication, themselves.

Because then you could have a market for all the little things, and that's the important thing. I'm not as anti-government as I am pro-market i'm still extremely skeptical of government efficiency though . But you can't have a market when people don't have the option to shop around for the best prices. If someone has internal bleeding and they need surgery right away, they can't just go to a different hospital if the price doesn't work for them.

But this is what insurance was meant for.

But the problem with this very limited form of government insurance is that it is not feasible for it to remain only for catastrophic situations. It would inevitably grow to cover trivial things because politicians, in their infinite generosity, want to expand their role as much as they can. And since that is the case, I don't really see a minimal government insurance as an option.
#113066 to #113063 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
In the end, your goal is a private competitive system, which still means people will die who cannot afford and many will go bankrupt. No?
#113070 to #113066 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
get catastrophic insurance
#113078 to #113070 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
...what?
#113079 to #113078 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
cheap insurance that has high deductibles, but it's there if anything very serious happens
#113087 to #113079 - unforgivensoul
Reply +2
(04/13/2016) [-]
This theoretical situation seems far less likely of happening than typical European single payer systems which we've seen work.
#113098 to #113087 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
And the Canadian one.

I honestly don't understand how Americans can't grasp this when the figures are so stark.

US healthcare is more expensive and worse in the vast majority of cases. Any amount of non-partisan research will lead you to that conclusion.

If I move to the US I will save enough money for a plane ticket to come back for treatment if I get really sick.
#113104 to #113098 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
So you want to move to the U.S?
#113140 to #113104 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/14/2016) [-]
I'm thinking about New York in a few years but only for a few years time.
#113058 to #113052 - pebar
Reply -1
(04/13/2016) [-]
#113090 to #113058 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
MASSIVELY misrepresenting the verdict!

scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2237/index.do

The US system is more expensive and worse for almost everyone.

Is the British Health Care System Really Better
#113103 to #113090 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/13/2016) [-]
I don't deny that the US system is currently a bit of a wreck

I do deny that the solution is for the gov to nationalize the entire industry
I would rather fix the problems
#113062 to #113058 - akkere
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
The US private solution is running on its own burden for time as well.
well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/where-have-all-the-primary-care-doctors-gone/
www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/universal-healthcare-doesnt-mean-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/
Patients are getting shafted left and right simply because too many physicians would rather become subspecialists and nickel and dime patients by tossing them around different practices (something that's happening to my father right now in fact). This in conjunction with the resultant lack of all-around physicians to better handle the queue of patients results in a backlog that surpasses whatever wait time resides with foreign universal health care solutions.
#113064 to #113062 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
#113055 to #113052 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Zhids like u
#113036 - kanadetenshi
Reply +4
(04/13/2016) [-]
The Republican Establishment added Rule 40(b) for their National Convention in 2012 which requires a candidate to have at least a majority of delegates in 8 states to be on the ballot at the National Convention. The rule was basically added just to prevent Ron Paul appearing on the ballot in order to dishonestly portray themselves as unified. As 2016 has a big chance of becoming a brokered convention for the Republican only Donald Trump or Ted Cruz are now able to get on the ballot, meaning that unless they manage to convince the convention to change this rule establishment candidates like Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio can't be nominated

mfw the Republican Estabishment fucking over Ron Paul in 2012 backfired on them.
#113061 to #113036 - seniorawesomesauce ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
All of rule 40 was added in 2012, to fuck over 1 candidate. What makes you think that they won't just remove it to fuck someone over again?
#113131 to #113061 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/14/2016) [-]
It's quite more difficult to remove a rule as far as i'm aware. I think the RNC chairman said that it's unlikely to be overruled.
#113041 to #113036 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Ron Paul fuckboi
#113037 to #113036 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Tho Paul Ryan said he wouldn't accept a nomination at the brokered convention anyway, but he said the same about becoming a speaker.
#113044 to #113037 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Paul Ryan seems like he could actually win in the election if he was nominated.
#113051 to #113044 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
I think any moderate Republican can probably beat Hillary at this point. She has very high unfavorable ratings and so many skeletons in the closet. also still blocking me makes me a sad boi : (
#113032 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Taxing corporate income necessarily results in taxing that money twice, as it's made and as its spent, discourages businesses from headquartering in the US, and inhibits growth. The only reason we have corporate taxes is because it's a revenue stream to collect that doesn't piss off the average voter.
#113045 to #113032 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Corporations have rights as legal entities and consume services provided by the state, why shouldn't they pay?
#113050 to #113045 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
They pay taxes as the money is spent. Why tax the money twice?
#113099 to #113050 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Corporations pay taxes as what money is spent?
#113100 to #113099 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Salaries, shareholder dividends, taxes on expenditures as well as corporate profit tax.
#113101 to #113100 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
The money doesn't care.
Why would you choose to end corporation tax in favour of those others? If you do choose to end corporation tax which of the other taxes would you increase?

Why shouldn't corporations as legal entities contribute to the services the state provides which they use?
#113102 to #113101 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
THEY DO CONTRIBUTE through the other taxes they pay. Corporate taxation encourages them to exploit tax havens and incorporate outside of America. Removing corporate taxation would increase collected revenues by encouraging incorporation inside the country.
#113139 to #113102 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/14/2016) [-]
So which taxes would you raise to compensate?
#113148 to #113139 - theism
Reply 0
(04/14/2016) [-]
You're not reading.
#113033 to #113032 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Holy shit for once I agree with you.
#113114 to #113033 - theism
Reply 0
(04/14/2016) [-]
I think you'll find I'm right about literally everything.
#113026 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**
Paul Ryan Denies Intention of a Presidential Bid Told Ya So
#112971 - feelythefeel
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
Communism is just so much better than Capitalism. You know a system is fucked when you can make money by

-Living in an expensive house (House sitting)
-Playing video games (Esports, QA testing)
-Driving fast cars past the speed limit (Nascar)
-Using Youtube (Youtube content creator)
-Sleeping (Sleep studies)
-Eating (Food critic)

I'm a Communist because I hate having fun.
#113038 to #112971 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
You can do all of that in communist China.
I'm a NatSoc because I'm too stupid to think for myself
#113080 to #113038 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
The Chinese can do a fraction of that because they've adopted a fraction of our capitalist policy.
#113019 to #112971 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
...why are people thumbing this down? Are you communists or something lol?
#113039 to #113019 - anon
Reply +1
(04/13/2016) [-]
Because its wrong.
#112992 to #112971 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
...why are you picking on low hanging fruit?
#112986 to #112971 - anon
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
Also, wanting to make money off of your labor is the entire basis of socialism and communism. It has nothing to do with "I hate being poor gib moni plox" which is only necessary under capitalism.

At least pretend to understand what you are talking about. Though you in particular probably think nations and statecraft are about >>>niggers
#113046 to #112986 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Wanting to make money off your labour is capitalism, under communism money is abolished.
#113042 to #112986 - anon
Reply -1
(04/13/2016) [-]
Everything he learns is from Nazi propaganda. That's why the homosexual sailor yourgaylol cock sucks him all the time.
#112987 to #112986 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
>communism is about making money off of your own labour
>this is achieved by taking everybody else's money through welfare and taxes
The early phases of communism, as we've seen it, amount to little more than the plunder of the state for the sake of an ideologically entitled few.
#112989 to #112987 - anon
Reply +2
(04/12/2016) [-]
>>this is achieved by taking everybody else's money through welfare and taxes

I'm only going to say this once: Welfare capitalism is not socialism, and it sure as hell is not communism. In practice, most socialist nations deviated heavily from the ideas of Marx, only appropriating the "dictatorship of the proletariat" for propaganda purposes. One could argue that this makes socialism impossible, but I think it's just the political climate of the Eastern dictatorships and the Cold War. Compare this to relatively huge successes like Yugoslavia.

In fact, Stalin and Mao, especially the former, crushed a fuckton of leftist movements that disagreed with their arrogant brutality. This is why we call them "tankies".
#113001 to #112989 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
1. ) How is full blown communism supposed to be any different in this sense? How is the state directly redistributing wealth along Marxist lines by means of state ownership any less an act of economic theft than doing so indirectly by means of taxation and welfare?
2.) Everyone elses Communism is wrong, goy. It's my snakeoil that works!
#113029 to #113001 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
People always fail to understand that Mao and Staton weren't trying to make communist countries. They were trying to create socialist dictatorships. Marxism can't work anyways because it requires a post scarcity world, or at least one where labor input is very small.
#113081 to #113029 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
I suppose every other communist leader with a kill count in the tens of thousands was like that, too? Because there's dozens of them.
#113082 to #113081 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
There's a difference between socialist dictatorships and communism you dense fuck.
#113084 to #113082 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Yes, one of them has never been achieved. But your socialism will, right?
#113085 to #113084 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
I'm not a socialist dumbass.
#112982 to #112971 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
>capitalism invented sleeping and eating

#112983 to #112982 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Capitalism invented getting payed for it, yes.
#112974 to #112971 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
what the problem, if people are willing to give you money to do what you do, then you are performing a function

people like video games
people like youtube
people like know what the best places to eat are

these are good things about capitalism
#112975 to #112974 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I'm being sarcastic. I'm very much for a loose, quasi-indirect form of State Capitalism.
#112977 to #112975 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
state capitalism...... where the factors of production are own by the state

ie, communism
#112981 to #112977 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Overseen, but not directly managed. Capitalism under the guidance and protection of the state. I believe that the economic role of the state is to do absolutely everything in it's power to allow the economy to autonomously manage itself. Protectionism and Autarky are good words for it.
#112947 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I think paedophiles shouldn't be allowed to vote.
:^)
#112949 to #112947 - phanact
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
they're allowed to vote?
#112955 to #112949 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
felons are generally not allowed to vote
however voting rights may eventually be restored

it depends on the state
#113030 to #112955 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Child molestation is a felony, pedophilia is a mental disorder.
#112950 to #112949 - anon
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
Ask Orkhanoidz. :^)
#112945 - phanact
Reply -4
(04/12/2016) [-]
Are people legitimately voting for trump because i thought it was a meme
#113043 to #112945 - canyou
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
He's somewhat popular with white middle class, people scared of losing their factory jobs, and anti political correct voters.

According to some polls, he's also the most unfavorable candidate in a general election, and Hillary is the second most unfavorable, which is really ironic.

Also, there's speculation that Trump won't win enough delegates to win the nomination outright before a brokered convention, so ted may still win. Just keep your eye on Pennsylvania this week.
#113010 to #112945 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
PHANACT IS FART
#112958 to #112945 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Trump's primary voter base is people who don't use the internet
#112961 to #112958 - phanact
Reply -3
(04/12/2016) [-]
That's gross
#113012 to #112961 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
You are a washed up autistic brony whose entire life is built around a website that is slowly forgetting who you are in favor of other autistic bronies.

Don't you understand that you not supporting Trump makes other people want to support Trump, just to have another way to dissociate themselves from you.

You're like the KKK but with no balls and zero social interaction.
#113013 to #113012 - phanact
Reply +1
(04/13/2016) [-]
lol
#113076 to #113013 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
PHANACT IS FART
#113040 to #113013 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Yourgaylol is a gay sailor that's why he's mad all the time
#113053 to #113040 - phanact
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
wellhe had as vaild point about the anti-me ness
#113077 to #113053 - anon
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
PHANACT IS FART
#113008 to #112961 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
PHANACT IS FART
#112963 to #112961 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
says thee horse fucker
#112966 to #112963 - phanact
Reply -2
(04/12/2016) [-]
How does that relate to my political opinion

wait im discussing politics on this site nevermind
#113009 to #112966 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
PHANACT IS FART
#112968 to #112966 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
your political opinion that people who don't use the internet are gross?
#112969 to #112968 - phanact
Reply -2
(04/12/2016) [-]
No

That people are voting for trump
#113011 to #112969 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
PHANACT IS FART
#112994 to #112969 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
Go back to doing BBQ delivery you fucking autist.
#112993 to #112969 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
He's far better than Cruz or Clinton, so you're retarded.
#112941 - Shiny
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Trump himself has come out and said that Sanders' loss of delegates in the race is proof of corruption and that the DNC and RNC are being unfair to both of them.

www.facebook.com/politico/videos/10153471423806680/

Trump confirmed for SJW beta cuck apparently!
#112965 to #112941 - feelythefeel
Reply +2
(04/12/2016) [-]
Trump has a lot to gain for standing up for Sanders, if only on this issue specifically. They're both the anti-establishment candidates for their parties, and a Trump vs Sanders election means a landslide victory for Trump.
#113031 to #112965 - theism
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Not necessarily.
#112996 to #112965 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
hahahahahahahahahahah that's cute, you actually think that, that's so cute
#113014 to #112996 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
You disappoint me.
#113015 to #113014 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Oh come on, even I didn't think Trump could beat Bernie before my "epiphany". Trump is a Emperor God status and totally meme-worthy, but he's perceived as no-substance anti-establishment. Bernie is all-substance anti-establishment. Can you imagine the two arguing against one another? He would absolutely crush Trump and I thought this even before.
#113016 to #113015 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
>He would absolutely crush Trump and I thought this even before.

Find one old comment of yours that says anything close to this.
#113018 to #113016 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
a) at least present some argument against me

b) Dummy it was an insecure feeling I had about Trump, of course I didn't post about it. I wanted to ignore that scenario at all costs. Now I don't of course, and as a National Socialist you should too. Money-out-of-politics would actually make the Republican party stand for true values instead of being corporate cucks. Want to talk about cuckery, blue collor white men have been fucked up the ass by corporations more than a Detroit tranny fucked by black men.
#113020 to #113018 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
I find it difficult to argue against you as I still feel some sentimentality towards you, my ability to argue effectively comes from a place of contempt. The more I resent someone the better I can focus on rebutting them. It provides me with some motivation.

I have no anger or malice towards you due to our history.

I only feel a small amount of sadness at the massive disappointment you turned out to be.
#113021 to #113020 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
>I find it difficult to argue against you as I still feel some sentimentality towards you
I will always love you too senpai.

>I only feel a small amount of sadness at the massive disappointment you turned out to be.
But I was a corporate cuck before, now I actually believe in something that will benefit white people. And hell I still don't believe in multiculturalism and think Europe should stay white and do whatever neccesary to keep it that way, I just don't hate other races or find them significantly inferior to my own. It's not like I ever believed America had a long-term future for white children (as in a majority). Heck at least now that we know America won't stay white, we can push for policy that will benefit everyone including white people, republicans don't seem to be doing that much. Just look at what Hitler said, the multinationals have their own interests. The globalists have their own agenda against the people, Hitler himself said that in his speeches. Regardless if you won't be able to argue with me, I at least need you to understand that.
#113022 to #113021 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
I think it would be best if I cease all contact with you for the foreseeable future.
#113025 to #113022 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
You gotta at least tell me why. That's all I want to know.
#113023 to #113022 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Wait at least tell me why, please.
#113027 to #113023 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
I know this isn't the goodfellas edit you wanted, but I think this is the most appropriate now.

I'll remember you as you were. We had a really good run together for the past few years.

Goodbye.
#113028 to #113027 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Goodbye.
#112988 to #112965 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
"a Trump vs Sanders election means a landslide victory for Trump."

He has lower approval ratings than most of the other candidates. The last celebrity to run successfully (Reagan) had the opposite.
#113005 to #112988 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
In fact, I've known many bi-partisan voters to be incredibly concious of tax plans as well in this sense.
#113004 to #112988 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
When it comes to the actual elections, many Republicans and other potential GOP voters have a long history of becoming single issue voters over tax plans, even if it wasn't much of a talking point beforehand. Trump's tax plan is far more forgiving than most, and it promises comparable returns too. Not to mention, GOP voters are historically unlikely to switch sides, even if a candidate they don't like as much wins the nomination.
#113017 to #113004 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
That's absolute BS. Bernie and Trump 1v1 on a live televised discussion would end in absolute embarrassment for Trump. Bernie is literally all-substance and would destroy Trump in a discussion. Trump would be viewed very weak if all he did was just throw ad homs. Plus what you said is totally wrong, the possibility of democrat voters (aside from the elites which are like a 1%) swaying to Trump is non-existent. The possibility of blue-collar Trump voters going to Bernie is more likely. Plus many Never-Trump voters will stay home, it would end in a landslide. Bernie out-populists Trump and out-susbtances him.
#113083 to #113017 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Yes, because whispering sweet nothings and sucking black cock is "all substance".
#113086 to #113083 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Nice argument, do you really want to argue who has the most substance between Trump and Bernie? This argument isn't going to end well for you.
#113088 to #113086 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
You'd swear Sanders and the Pope are twins.
#113089 to #113088 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww
#112956 to #112941 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I don't think that makes him a beta cuck. Sanders stances on political corruption aren't what makes him a "cuck". Both parties are honestly corrupt as fuck and this isn't anything really new or surprising to me.
#112985 to #112956 - Shiny
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I was making a remark about Trump's idiot young voters, not the man himself.
#112938 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
If the minimum wage is set below the equilibrium wage, is it simply ineffective or is it actively harmful? (Assuming the economy would hit the optimal outcome on it's own)
#112998 to #112938 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Obviously ineffective lel
#112946 to #112938 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
if it's below the equilibrium, then it does nothing

but keep in mind that different industries, different neighborhoods, different demographics all have different equilibrium which incidentally gives incentives for people to move
#113007 to #112946 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Although I would guess the real issue for them is the working conditions.
#112954 to #112946 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I was wondering if there would be employers offering wages below the equilibrium, and if it would cause them to hire less.
#112962 to #112954 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
if employer offer less than the equilibrium, they tend to not get many workers because they'll go to some other employer who will pay more
#112964 to #112962 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
So you would say that the number of people put out of work is insignificant?
#112967 to #112964 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
people who don't have jobs are generally willing to bargain by offering to work for a lower wage
this decreases the equilibrium wage
#112970 to #112967 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
This phenomenon would be more intense when labor demand is low yeah?
#112972 to #112970 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
>>#112967, I misstated. It decreases the wage that people work for; the equilibrium is the goal.
the equilibrium price is also called the market clearing price, so if the market is not cleared (ie there's lots of unemployed) then the market is not at equilibrium but market forces will move the market towards it

but yes, the larger the gap, the stronger the force
#112973 to #112972 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
In the theory it's a bit like potential difference, in thermo or electro dynamics.

Of course there are confounding factors, typically employers occupy a much greater position of power in the system.
#112976 to #112973 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
that's true compared to the individual workers, but you also have to keep in mind that employers compete with other employers to get good labor

that's why head hunting exists
#112978 to #112976 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
That tends to work very well when there is high demand for labor and especially in the skilled labor market. Unskilled laborers tend to get shafted.
#112980 to #112978 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
which is why they don't get paid much

but unskilled laborers still have options to go elsewhere, usually
#112984 to #112980 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
They also tend to get the non-optimum result though, don't they?
#112990 to #112984 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
close enough
#112991 to #112990 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Would you say that, for example, chinese wages are at the optimal level?
#112995 to #112991 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
considering how many people they have relative to their capital stock, I wouldn't be surprised
#112997 to #112995 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I don't hear a lot about labor organization in China. I wonder what role that plays.
#112999 to #112997 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
like unions?
that may increase workers leverage but it wouldn't change the equilibrium
#113000 to #112999 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
It could push wages closer to the equilibrium. It seems to me Chinese business operates well off the optimal outcome.
#113006 to #113000 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
i really don't know enough about them specifically to comment
#113002 to #113000 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
"optimal" seems like a loaded word... the equilibrium wage is equal to the marginal product of labor
this is true for every industry

unless unions make workers more efficient, like if job security increase performance, then and only then will the equilibrium wage increase
#113003 to #113002 - theism
0
(04/12/2016) [-]
What I'm saying is, in a market like China's I wouldn't be surprised if workers were making well below the equilibrium wage.
#112948 to #112946 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
>>#112938, the econ term is non-binding price floor
#112918 - canyou
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
What's the biggest difference between right and left for you?

After watching some CrashCourse economics, I've come to the conclusion that the biggest difference is that the left generally wants more regulations, and the right wants less. Doors that seem like a fair statement?
#113047 to #112918 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
People on the left believe in social conflict theory, that authoritarianism and oppression are caused by social status and seek to eliminate this through equal outcome. People on the right reject this either because they don't believe social status causes oppression n itself or that it is desirable for people to be unequal.
#112942 to #112918 - Shiny
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
"More government" and "less government is authoritarian and libertarian, not left and right. Left and right are more about collectivism vs. individualism. Among libertarian types, the former sees them as one in the same while the latter sees them as a false dichotomy.
#112936 to #112918 - theism
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
The left wants more regulation on institutions, the right wants more on the individual. Generally speaking.
#112937 to #112936 - theism
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
From my perception of American politics.
#112933 to #112918 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
is crash course economics any good?
I've been boycotting it since it started but I'm still subscribed because I like their other videos
#112943 to #112933 - Shiny
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
He's very fair to both capitalism and socialism, which #triggers the hell out of the kind of genetic detritus that comments on YouTube videos. He's cool in my view.
#112939 to #112933 - canyou
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I find it really fascinating. Just as informative as any of their other courses. They use a lot of colorful examples to keep it interesting too.
#112932 to #112918 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Please don't use the 1D political dimension. There is NO right and left. There is right, left, libertarian and authoritarian.
#112927 to #112918 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Left: Do what you want.
Right: Do what I tell you.
#113048 to #112927 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
Left: Do you you want unless you want to hire who you want, eat what you want, believe what you want, say what you want, buy and sell what you want or even own what you want.
#112940 to #112927 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Right: Do what I tell you.
Left: Do what we tell you.
#112935 to #112927 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
lol, you should be in that carn and aids-skrillex vid
#112931 to #112927 - canyou
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
You can't say that, it triggers me.
#112919 to #112918 - lotengo
Reply +2
(04/12/2016) [-]
For me, to summarise it.
Left is about equality
Right is about freedom
#113035 to #112919 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
So if you're on the right you're pro-freedom? You can't think of any historical events or groups that might show that to be complete shit?
#112926 to #112919 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Unless you are a Syrian. Or Jew. Or Muslim. Or Poor.
#112934 to #112926 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Thats why its not about equality.
#112920 to #112919 - canyou
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Ooooo

That's interesting.
#112924 to #112920 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
think about it
#112869 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
It's ironic the person in the comment is attaching a gender and sexuality to the color pink. Also of course thathappened.
#112929 to #112869 - asotil
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Then Hillary Clinton started clapping
#112916 to #112869 - canyou
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I remember a story about a man who knew his 2yo was gay because he liked the color pink over blue
#112921 to #112916 - lotengo
Reply +2
(04/12/2016) [-]
Well 5 y/o son, i see you glancing at a barbie doll in the store, i guess its only right to chop off your penis and parade you around in a miniskirt.

- this gay earth
#112925 to #112921 - canyou
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
Also, I like how the left acts like we should be taking morality lessons from 5 year old kids. If the world was ran by 5 year olds for a single day there'd be a nuclear holocaust.
#112876 to #112869 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
im surprised a 7 year old knows what breast cancer month is

too surprised.....
#112877 to #112876 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Are you suggesting that this might not have happened?
#112915 to #112877 - undeadwill
Reply +2
(04/12/2016) [-]
I am. Its totally fake.
#112848 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Should businesses be allowed to refuse service to any individual? Should they be required to serve any person but be allowed to refuse to provide certain services? Should businesses have to provide any service they would reasonably provide? (i.e. a catering company catering any function)
#113049 to #112848 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/13/2016) [-]
If the service is private they should refuse service, but should also not be allowed to benefit from government services like subsidies.
#112944 to #112848 - Shiny
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
It depends on the potential impact on the economy: many businesses operate in a fashion that indirectly affects many other people, both financially and socially. Not selling a cake to a gay couple is freedom of association, but not letting them on a publicly subsidized interstate bus is not good.
#112930 to #112848 - asotil
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Your business, your rules

Apart from legal obligations, who gives a Shit how you run it
#112922 to #112848 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Yes, fuck them if they dont want profit.
#112882 to #112848 - figatron ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Yes. People should not be required to serve anyone. But the market system encourages inclusion. Businesses who do not serve certain groups have a much more limited potential market share than those that don't.
#112923 to #112882 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Only stuff like educational, medical and basic human rights/needs. Not wedding cakes with dildo's sticking out of it or furfag conference at an upper class hotel
#112887 to #112882 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Do you consider certain services a human right?
#112895 to #112887 - figatron ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
No. Because a services is provided by someone else using their labor. And you do not have a right to what is not yours. Rights cannot be given to you by someone else, they are what belong exclusively to you. The obvious exception is hospitals who can't recurse to treat someone, but that is about their code of ethics, not human rights.
#112897 to #112895 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
So then people can reasonably be expected to go without food, water or shelter?
#112900 to #112897 - figatron ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
no. but that has nothing to due with rights. You do not have a right to someone else's food, water or shelter if you have none of your own. In reality survival is not a guarantee. It is reasonable to expect someone to work for their survival rather to have the government steal resources from someone else.
#112901 to #112900 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Presumably they'd still be expected to pay, they would just have the guarantee to be paid.
#112892 to #112887 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
do people have a right to own slaves?
#112893 to #112892 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I wouldn't say slaves are a human right.
#112894 to #112893 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
then why would you say government forcing people to work against their will is a human right?
#112896 to #112894 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Well presumably if they're operating a store they're already working yeah?
#112898 to #112896 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
no
#112899 to #112898 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
So operating a store is not work?
#112902 to #112899 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
you've obviously never worked a slow shift
#112903 to #112902 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
You're still working, stocking maintenance, just being there.
#112904 to #112903 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
catering a wedding is not standard work
#112905 to #112904 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
That would fall under refusing to preform certain services.
#112873 to #112848 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
Non-public businesses should be allowed to refuse anyone under any reason in my opinion.

I think business should have a right to serve whoever they want.
#112851 to #112848 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
Walter E Williams  Freedom To Discriminate I'm starting to think leftists are more socially controlling than conservatives
#112884 to #112851 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
The motivation of the school is to serve the interests of the student body. It's perfectly understandable to take issue with the student body in this situation, and I would agree with the sentiment myself.
#112885 to #112884 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
if you don't support free speech, just say so

it's not an uncommon opinion among leftists
reason.com/blog/2015/01/08/one-third-of-americans-and-51-percent-of
#112886 to #112885 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Again, this isn't an issue of free speech, free speech is about non-interference. Anything else is outside the range of free speech. Being a prick might get you pretty far with these other cunts, but it's not gonna do you any good with me.
#112888 to #112886 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
canceling a speech that was already reserved because you disagree with the message is an interference
#112889 to #112888 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
There's a difference between not serving someone and interfering. Interfering would be chasing a man off for his speech.
#112890 to #112889 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
we're going in circles
#112891 to #112890 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
It comes down to a difference of definitions. We'd both agree I assume that the student groups were wrong to protest, possibly childish even. It's also debatable whether the school should have complied. But I would say free speech doesn't come in to it.
#112853 to #112851 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Leftists are (typically) more controlling in an economic context (which I would say this is).

So you're argument would be that the free market would correct any social consequence?

Another thing, a few weeks ago you were commenting on a university cancelling a talk by Ben Shapiro, do you feel that it was outside their rights to not serve him?
#112854 to #112853 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Public universities are bound by the first amendment

Private universities are bound by contract law if they advertise that they support free speech and students go to those college based on that knowledge.
Private colleges are merely held to the standards that they themselves set.

If a private catholic school that makes no promise of free speech wants to ban anyone who isn't pro-life, that's their right
#112855 to #112854 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Should any venue that professes a belief in free speech allow anyone that wants to speak there to speak?
#112856 to #112855 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
yes, because they said they would
#112857 to #112856 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Should someone without the means to pay be allowed to speak? Should the venue be required to cancel it's own events to fill all requests? Is there no ideological grounds the venue can cancel on? Is the venue not allowed to select speakers to suit it's audiences interests?
#112858 to #112857 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
negative vs positive rights
#112859 to #112858 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Could you elaborate on what exactly you mean by that? It seems the claim you're making is that any speaker has an entitlement to the venues time, and the venue has the duty to provide it?
#112860 to #112859 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
...if the venue said they would give out time in the first place
#112862 to #112860 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Or are you referring to a contract violation in this case?
#112864 to #112862 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
for private businesses, it's contract, from a legal standpoint anyway

if you're talking about morals, things get more complicated
#112861 to #112860 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
So free speech implies providing a specific time slot at a specific venue?
#112863 to #112861 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Free speech is about the CONTENT of speech, like an idea that's unpopular
I think that's where your confusion is

Even if only one opinion was allowed at a certain venue, they would still have scheduling conflicts. The content is the important bit.
#112865 to #112863 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Free speech is about non-interference. A time slot at a venue is a provided service (in this case a positive right). Because the campus supports free speech they don't have the right to chase a man off for sharing his views, unless it constitutes a danger to the community e.g. inciting violence. However that doesn't mean they have the obligation to devote campus resources (speaking venue, promotion etc.) to anyone.
#112866 to #112865 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
if the campus gives some people a time slot, that means that they are already giving out time slots, so they're already providing the service

if they refuse to give a time slot to someone, even though they said they would, that's when there's a violation
#112867 to #112866 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
But the campus isn't just giving out time slots, they're giving out time slots to speakers the students want to see.
#112868 to #112867 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
In the case of Ben Shapiro, he was invited by a student organization and they had already reserved the time slot.
#112870 to #112868 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Should the university not have the right to revoke a time slot they gave out?
#112871 to #112870 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
why would they do that
#112872 to #112871 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Variety of reasons, in this case it was due to student pressure to cancel.
#112883 to #112872 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
>>#112881, I would
#112878 to #112872 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
my point is that's not a good enough reason, especially at a public university, like csula private universities often adopt the same standards

pressure from other students, and the my well endowed daddyistration caving to that pressure would equate to censoring someone because of the CONTENT of their speech
#112881 to #112878 - theism
0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Well no, the content was the motivation for the protests, but the protests were the reason for the cancellation. I wouldn't consider this situation transitive.
#112880 to #112878 - pebar
0
(04/12/2016) [-]
fuck off, my well endowed daddy
#112875 to #112874 - theism
0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I'm not sure what point you're making.
#112850 to #112848 - marinepenguin
Reply +1
(04/12/2016) [-]
In my opinion if a person owns a private business, they have a right to choose who to serve. That simple.

People will say that's a "right to discriminate", which could very well be, but a business owner can choose to not serve people for reasons other than race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

And generally, discrimination isn't a good business practice. A good business owner will serve all customers regardless of their personal beliefs. Businesses that are discriminatory are more likely to go out of business and be outcompeted by non discriminatory businesses.
#112852 to #112850 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
What if there is no competing business in a reasonable area? Grocery stores tend to serve a large area and in poorer neighborhoods travelling to one outside your area is impractical. Should people in such a situation sit out the discrimination or do they deserve some protections?
#112952 to #112852 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Also my county where I currently live is one of the highest rated in terms of poverty, most people still to the larger store outside of town instead of the smaller mom and pop ones. Same goes for where I was originally from.
#112953 to #112952 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
*In terms of poverty levels within the state*

My mistake.
#112951 to #112852 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Very unlikely situation to happen unless you live in remote areas.

Personally I live in a rural area, and I'm originally from an even more rural area. My current town of 2000 has 3 grocery stores with maybe 5 or 6 within a 15 minute drive. The prior town of 450 had 2, with another 2 or 3 within a similar distance.
#112957 to #112951 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Food density tends to be better in rural areas. What about urban ones?
#112960 to #112957 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
The biggest reason people won't be able to shop at a grocery store in the city is high prices while living in a poverty stricken area, not because of discrimination. The distance between groceries stores in urban areas is far shorter than that in rural areas, it takes a simple drive through St. Louis or Chicago when you see a dollar general, Walmart, Kmart, etc every 10 blocks or so to realize that.
#112845 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
#112846 to #112845 - pebar
Reply +2
(04/12/2016) [-]
#112879 to #112846 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Sounds like a platitude
#112842 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
build wall ≈ kill 6 gorillion
#112841 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
#112840 - anon
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
#112917 to #112840 - canyou
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Interesting point
#112838 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
I'm playing a game of Vic2 Ultimate in which I'm the dominant superpower as India, and I'm currently fighting a world war to dismantle the only major German state left. This world only gets worse and worse the more I play it.
#112839 to #112838 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
mw2 best game ever
#112804 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
Sorry to interrupt your clickbait and theism's muslim apology tourl. But Ted might be dead soon.

>The rat's Canadian roots is coming back to haunt him
>Cruz falsly swore that he was Natural Born when he was actually Naturalized (there is a difference) in order to gain ballot access
>Whether or not a Naturalized citizen can still run is not the debate it's that TED LIED
>New Jersey saying he's not eligible to be on the ballot
>New Jersey will hold disqualification hearing tomorrow morning
>If Cruz is disqualified, he may also be disqualified in California, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington
>Don't expect the establishment to go down without a fight. Expect a shitshow. Get your popcorn.
>"Shieeet. We should have dropped our anchor in Vermont." --Ted Cruz' Mother


www.northjersey.com/news/fight-over-cruz-s-ballot-eligibility-moves-to-courtrooms-1.1515140

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ted-cruz-risks-primary-disqualification-in-new-jersey-other-late-primary-states-charges-professor-victor-williams-300248565.html
#112847 to #112804 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Sorry I disrupted your safe space.
#112906 to #112847 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Im fine with that, more worried about all the other muzzies disrupting all public spaces withtheir suicide bombings
#112907 to #112906 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Sorry I hurt their feelings.
#112908 to #112907 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
its more about hurting my continent
#112909 to #112908 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I'll try to be more sensitive. I understand you're a delicate snowflake.
#112910 to #112909 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
its more about the people and the buildings around me that can die or fall over when you crash commerican airliners into them
#112911 to #112910 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
I'll be sure to preface all my comments with a trigger warning so as not to offend you.
#112912 to #112911 - lotengo
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Just make sure you dont trigger your AK's when in the province of Brabant, but feel free to shoot up Amsterdam, i know its in your ¨¨¨culture¨¨¨
#112913 to #112912 - theism
Reply 0
(04/12/2016) [-]
Can I get a link to your tumblr so I can read up on all your triggers?
#112822 to #112804 - asotil
Reply -1
(04/11/2016) [-]
Cruz is ineligible, there is no debate on the matter

Rules clearly state you must be born in the US, he is Canadian born. Establishment is twisting the rules now in a last ditch effort
#112833 to #112822 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/11/2016) [-]
>there is no debate on the matter

the courts disagree with you
#112824 to #112822 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
The US Constitution doesn't say that. It says "natural born citizen" and doesn't define the term. John McCain wasn't born in the US either but he was deemed eligible due to his parents being US citizens.

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term 'natural born' citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship 'at birth.'"

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
#112825 to #112824 - theism
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
I thought McCain was eligible due to Panama being US territory at the time?
#112831 to #112825 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
It was an unincorporated territory which made it a bit more complicated. There was an Act of Congress in 1937 which should have made it clear but it was still controversial.

McCain is also just one example, Mitt Romney's father George was born in Mexico and ran for the Republican nomination.

The controversy about Cruz is just people grasping at straws.
#112832 to #112831 - theism
Reply +1
(04/11/2016) [-]
Why focus on this when he's the zodiac killer?
#112835 to #112832 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
lol true, that should get him disqualified.
#112808 to #112804 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
the sites I see say that one guy filed a charge
it didn't prove he lied
many courts have already ruled he is eligible

this is not news
#112806 to #112804 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
Still not sure what's the big deal in having to be born in America in order to become President, what's the issue if he's born somewhere else but raised in America?
#112809 to #112806 - pebar
Reply +1
(04/11/2016) [-]
because the constitution says so
Cruz was a natural born citizen because his mother was an american
#112811 to #112809 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
The constitution also outlawed alcohol for a while. Maybe i don't get it as an American but for me it's just an useless piece of paper.
#112826 to #112811 - theism
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
The constitution is the law of the land, so unless this provision is overturned Cruz wouldn't be able to legally run for president (If he's not a natural born citizen).
#112827 to #112826 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
I know, i just think it's stupid.
#112828 to #112827 - theism
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
We need a code of law and the constitution is built to be changed. It actually makes quite a bit of sense.
#112829 to #112828 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
No i mean the whole needing to be murrican born part.
#112830 to #112829 - theism
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
If you can contact the Supreme Court you might try to convince them to change it.
#112814 to #112811 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
wait..... did you just call the constitution useless?
#112817 to #112814 - anon
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
It's as useless or useful as the people backing it.

If the law system is overtaken by anti-constitutionalists and constitution-supporters do nothing about it, then it is rendered useless.
#112815 to #112814 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
It pretty much is, nobody follows it properly, includes authoritarian ideas such as eminent domain and can be used to include authoritarian ideas like prohibition. If anything the constitution is the opposite of freedom.
#112816 to #112815 - anon
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
It's a mix of both. Don't bash the entire thing as being the opposite of freedom when only part of it has been used that way.

Read the Bill of Rights (First 10 amendments) and tell me that part is the opposite of freedom.
#112818 to #112816 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
If it includes things that are not in line with freedom, then it's not for freedom. And the fact that these 10 amendments can be abolished also proves that. If it was meant to limit government it's been the worst attempt ever.
#112820 to #112818 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
Obama Supporters Sign Petition to Repeal the BILL OF RIGHTS to Support the President The constitution was create as it was because of a debate between the federalists and anti-federalists, arguing whether or not how big government should be. It's not perfect because there was a lot of disagreement and compromises were made.
The bill of rights was one of the compromises.

one of its biggest flaws is the commerce clause which courts have greatly expanded beyond its original intent. At the time, economics as a field of study was not well understood. Adam Smith's Wealth of nations was only just published. So the interconnection of economic activities was hidden.

There was a court case, I for get which one, which said if you grow your own wheat for your own personal consumption and have no intent to sell it, the federal government can still regulate it under that commerce clause because by growing your own wheat, you reduce your own demand for other people's wheat which affects the economy.
It was fucking stupid, and I blame the courts entirely for the bastardization of the constitution.

So I do agree that it's not perfect because it allowed our current government to be created. But a written document that establishes what a government can and cannot do, and has a body to oversee this, is a solid principle.

Government would be FAR worse without it. We have people getting arrested for unpopular opinions, like what's seen in Europe.
#112813 to #112811 - pebar
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
the constitution banned alcohol with an amendment, then it took another amendment to repeal it

it would take a constitutional amendment to allow foreigners to become president
and to do that, you need a a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate to propose a change or one other thing that almost never happens, and i can't think of a time when it did
and then it needs approval from a majority of 38 out of the 50 state legislatures

so it's a hard process and it's virtually impossible with controversial issues
#112805 to #112804 - canyou
Reply 0
(04/11/2016) [-]
I don't think Trump winning by default will do much for his popularity.