Upload
Login or register
Newest
Realtime Comments: On
Online User List [+] Online: (1): klowserpok, pebar, anonymous(5).
asd
User avatar #137024 - feelythefeel
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
>be me
>Mitt Romney
>spend election season shitting on one specific candidate
>he wins
>offers me a position in his new administration
>hang myself
#137062 to #137024 - falconxmard
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/05/2016) [-]
User avatar #137015 - Ruspanic
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
So this was unexpected. What do you guys think?
www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/03/early-trump-supporter-palin-suggests-carrier-deal-is-crony-capitalism.html

"When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent [...] Republicans oppose this, remember? We support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail."
- Sarah Palin, talking about Trump's deal with Carrier
User avatar #137049 to #137015 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
It's great that she is her own person, at least. Funny that leftists (not you, but many anti-trumpers) spend the last 8 years denouncing Sarah Palin as an idiot, then stepped up their efforts when she endorsed Trump, then turned the hate up to 11 when she was considered for head of the VA, and now suddenly when she speaks out against Trump she's this wonderful person and it somehow validates their argument. Same for right wingers, she given "unfair treatment" for 2008 to now, given "unnecessary hate" after she endorsed donald and was considered for head of VA, and then suddenly she's a fucking moron when she speaks out against him.

What Palin says is true, that is something Republicans stand against, and it is arguably crony capitalism, and she made quite the argument for it. However, I feel like (and hope) this is not reflective of the Trump presidency, as he's only the president-elect and can't enact any policies nor hold an authority until January 20th.
User avatar #137050 to #137049 - Ruspanic
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
The Carrier plant in question is in Indiana, where Mike Pence is still the governor, so it's entirely possible for the deal to be implemented already. I'm not sure of the details.
User avatar #137036 to #137015 - figatron
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
I'm just waiting for Trump to explain why outsourcing is a bad thing
User avatar #137047 to #137036 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Joooobbbbsss
User avatar #137031 to #137015 - Shiny
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
I may not be a fan of Trump, but Palin's birth is an affront to natural selection.
User avatar #137033 to #137031 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
She's not wrong here, though.
User avatar #137021 to #137015 - feelythefeel
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Gee, it's almost as if people get tired of free market capitalism when it costs them their

>jobs
>wealth
>possessions
>safety
>sovereignty
>etc

Nah, status quo politics is where it's at. Trump would do just fine of he reneged on everything he promised during the election and the very principle of his platform. After all, the Romney campaign is something all real (Read: Neo) Cons should look up to.
#137030 to #137021 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
The leftist shows his true form
User avatar #137035 to #137030 - feelythefeel
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
???
#137037 to #137035 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Commie scum get out
User avatar #137059 to #137037 - redandgreen
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Economic 'freedoms' do not equal actual freedom or the elimination of poverty.
User avatar #137081 to #137059 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(21 hours ago) [-]
the freedom to spend your own hard-earned money as you like doesn't count as "actual freedom"? The freedom to pursue your a profession of your choice isn't freedom?
User avatar #137111 to #137081 - redandgreen
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(9 hours ago) [-]
As I said:
Economic 'freedoms' do not equal actual freedom or the elimination of poverty.

There is more to freedom than economic freedom. Also, by your definition nobody has ever been free.
User avatar #137125 to #137111 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(8 hours ago) [-]
I don't understand why you're putting "freedom" in scare quotes, or why you don't consider economic freedom part of actual freedom.

Yes, there is more to freedom than just economic freedom, but economic freedom is an important and necessary part.
You don't need to be 100% absolutely free to count as "free" for practical purposes. (I define freedom as freedom from coercion, by the way.)
But on a sliding scale, the citizens of a country with heavy economic regulation, bans on sale/ownership of certain goods, high taxes, economic planning, trade protectionism etc are less free than the citizens of a country without those things, all else being equal.
User avatar #137073 to #137059 - pebar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/05/2016) [-]
You cannot have political freedom without economic freedom
nor can you have prosperity without economic freedom
User avatar #137113 to #137073 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(9 hours ago) [-]
As I said:
Economic 'freedoms' do not equal actual freedom or the elimination of poverty.

The free market has not eliminated poverty or made people free - Case in point, your poster boy's policies did neither in Chile.
User avatar #137121 to #137113 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(9 hours ago) [-]
And there is no example of prosperity anywhere in the world that is not largely capitalist
User avatar #137123 to #137121 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(9 hours ago) [-]
Kibbutz do pretty well.

Also, most developed nations have mixed economies, not extreme free market ones.
User avatar #137119 to #137113 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(9 hours ago) [-]
Chile has one of the highest standards of living in south America

Economic freedom does not cause other freedoms, but you cannot have other freedoms without having economic freedom
User avatar #137122 to #137119 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(9 hours ago) [-]
It had one of the worst human rights records whilst having 'free market economics' and is better off now pursuing 'Social Capitalism' being freer and prosperous.
User avatar #137026 to #137021 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
The free market is not to blame for everybody's woes. It's true that in a free-market system some people will lose their jobs, some businesses will close down, etc, but that's natural - new jobs are created to replace those that are lost. In the long run such a system leads to increased wealth, prosperity, and technological advancement for virtually everyone. At least, as long as there is free and fair competition - as opposed to monopolies, or crony capitalism (in which large companies lobby for favorable legislation to give them an unfair competitive advantage).

If the government interferes every time a company decides to lay off people, it's just going to stifle economic development and prop up obsolete industries. It is not the job of the government to intervene in the operation of a private business to prevent you from being fired. I think the government does have a legitimate role in regulating economic activity, but it does not exist simply to solve everyone's problems.

You were being sarcastic, but Romney was a much better candidate than Trump. Not exactly a principled ideologue, sure, but a reasonable and competent statesman with experience in both the private and public sector and a generally good understanding of how things work. Trump has neither principles nor relevant knowledge. Many of his promises were shitty and poorly-conceived in the first place, and in those cases he should renege on them in the interest of good governance. It's not like he's generally opposed to flip-flopping.

One last point on the neocon thing: I think you're using it as a generic insult for conventional Republicans, but "neoconservative" actually is a specific foreign policy term for people who support an interventionist foreign policy aimed at spreading democracy and Western values, and promoting US interests abroad. For example, the Bush Administration and the American Enterprise Institute. Romney is hardly an isolationist, but he's no Rumsfeld-esque neocon either.
User avatar #137032 to #137026 - Shiny
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
"Crony capitalism" is just capitalism taken to its logical conclusion. It's always a step forward in its earliest stages, and was considerably progressive in the feudal era, but eventually the gravy train rolls to a stop and the system eats society alive to maintain itself. To collude and control the economy at the expense of the working class is just in your self-interest if you own a large business.

That said, nationalists are usually cognitive-dissonant and end up reverting to welfare capitalism because they can't think of any alternatives.
User avatar #137027 to #137026 - feelythefeel
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
If you have a totally free market, or anything approaching that, crony capitalism is pretty much inevitable.

I believe that the government should interfere if it's in the best interests of the nation's people. Economic competitiveness is a concept that should, of course, be taken into account, but it comes secondary to the common good.

Romney was the definition of an establishment Republicans, and he proved that an establishment Republican won't win presidential elections any time soon.

I'm not all for redefining words willy-nilly, but you have to admit that it's taken on a more relevant meaning than that in recent years.
User avatar #137028 to #137027 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Crony capitalism can be curtailed through various laws and government measures that would restrict corporations's special access to the government, and by replacing politicians who are corrupt or deeply beholden to monied corporate interests. By definition, free-market capitalism does not have the government interference inherent to crony capitalism.

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, as a general rule market forces are much better at creating an efficient, productive and growing economy than are human planners in the government. Even well-intentioned government policies often have a way of failing or producing unintended negative consequences.
I don't believe that the market can fix everything - there are such things as "market failures", for example when it comes to the environment - but I do believe that individual humans freely making decisions in their own interests typically do a much better job of ensuring their own welfare than do central planners trying to make decisions in everyone's best interests.

Romney was an establishment Republican, yes, but I don't think he proved the inadequacy of establishment Republicans as candidates. True, he happened to be a pretty bland, uninspiring candidate and consequently lost to Obama. However I think he could have easily beaten the deeply unpopular Hillary Clinton. And so could Marco Rubio, John Kasich or many of the other establishment Republicans running in this year's Republican primaries. I also think Romney would have made a decent President, and could yet make a good Secretary of State, if Trump picks him for that position.
Unfortunately, in a democracy the best-suited candidate is not necessarily the one that wins.
User avatar #137029 to #137028 - feelythefeel
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
You're not thinking 4th dimensionally, Marty. Laws are just words written on paper, and can easily be repealed as a result of corruption if they're not effective enough at combating said corruption. If you allow for actions to be taken to the direct disadvantage of your people in the private sector, it'll shift the balance of power in favour of international elements and seep into the public sector. I honestly don't think that free market capitalism is at all effective at combating international cronyism in the long term.

"You can't just create a robust and effective state-capitalist system, Fascist powers of the Axis!"
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

I'm not for total planning of the economy, but adapted capitalism within the framework of the state seems like a good idea to me.

Again, four dimensions. Romney lost largely because he failed to capture the spirit/principle of populism, which at that point was nascent but important. Obama offered more "change", no matter how vague and ill defined, than any establishment Republican would ever allow himself to. Thus, he won. Now that a fully-fledged Populist has the White House, the flood gates that started leaking back then have burst open. Mark my words, Populism will be the new hot trend in American politics. It'll be the death of the current establishment as we know it on both sides.
User avatar #137034 to #137029 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
I agree that there's nothing inherent to the free market itself that would combat crony capitalism, international or domestic. I am not such an idealist that I'd believe the glorious spirit of competition will prevent people from trying to collude or gain unfair advantages. But the free market must be protected (perhaps ironically) by a strong and consistent legal framework. Most obviously, legal protection of private property, but also things like anti-monopoly regulations and, in my opinion, laws against big money in politics. You are right to point out that laws may be repealed - or simply not enforced well - but I don't see an alternative. You support the government intervening in the economy for the common good, but your preferred system similarly is susceptible to corruption by powerful special interests, because politicians are always corruptible. All I can say is we have to do our best to prevent that from happening.

Planned economies of various sorts have been tried and tested, and they don't have a good track record. Typically, you have to apply extreme authoritarian force in order to make them productive, and I am strongly opposed to authoritarianism on principle. It is an illegitimate overreach of government power. There's also the fact that even smart bureaucrats and politicians tend to be pretty bad at accounting for the countless independent and often conflicting interests that exist in society. You just can't make everyone happy.

As for populism - yes, it's a hot "new" trend, but although populists may be good at winning elections, they don't necessarily make good statesmen. You can make all the lofty promises you want to appeal to the electorate, but that doesn't mean you can or even should implement those promises. For example, Trump's (and Bernie Sanders's) protectionism may sound good to regular people if you sell it with the rhetoric of "protecting American jobs", but realistically it's going to increase prices for American consumers and slow down economic growth, which is worse in the long run.

Popular appeal doesn't equal merit.
User avatar #137090 to #137034 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(21 hours ago) [-]
Also, we suffer far greater consequences from being so reliant on the internationalist framework than from potentially being more self-reliant.
User avatar #137089 to #137034 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(21 hours ago) [-]
I suppose any system, no matter how well crafted, is for naught if you put it in the hands of cronies. If you want to put it that way.

Assuming you meant to say State Capitlism here. Planned economies are communist level garbo. As I said, the National Socialist experiment was a great success on the economic level. You can say a lot of things about the Axis powers, but "economically weak" is not one of them.

Trump is already making great strides, and he isn't even in office yet. He's doing especially well in foreign policy, which you might remember all of the pollsters doomsaying about.

Popular appeal and merit are proven separately, but they can also be proven concurrently.
User avatar #137094 to #137089 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(15 hours ago) [-]
Tbh I don't know anything about Fascist Italy's economics, but Nazi Germany's economy had many authoritarian components. The Nazis were certainly not capitalists, and used central planning to subjugate the economy to the agenda of the state, albeit to a lesser degree than in Communist countries. Many key industries were nationalized, women (and Jews) were forbidden from working, and many men were employed in public works projects or in the military and could not refuse without risking being sent to a concentration camp. The Nazis also used slave labor from labor camps.

I don't consider any of that to be morally acceptable or worth emulating.

And then there's the fact that certain industries prospered due to the war economy, as happened in many participants in WWII. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the government contracting companies to produce military materiel for wartime, but considering the Nazis launched a war of aggression, anything they did to this end was serving an inherently immoral purpose.

When I refer to economic planning, I don't just mean entirely planned economies like in the USSR.

There are pros and cons to being integrated into the world economy, but I think international trade does far more good than harm. Not every country is able to be self-sufficient, because not all necessary resources exist within the borders of every country. Trade is able to provide anything a country needs but does not have. Or even provide things that a country does have, but at a cheaper price than domestic production would cost. While the "global economy" does make all countries integrated into it more susceptible to global shocks, on balance trade makes everyone richer.
Plus, on a philosophical/moral level, if you believe in private property then who are you to stop private citizens from buying foreign goods, or from selling their goods abroad?

As for Trump, I'm not sure what great strides you're referring to. As you said, he's not even in office yet.
User avatar #137020 to #137015 - youregaylol
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Trump will never be a traditional republican, he is redefining the entire party.
User avatar #137039 to #137020 - figatron
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
if the new republican party is so quick to embrace socialist economics what makes Trump different than a Democrat?
#137038 to #137020 - anon id: 6b826886
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Do you still have your emotional breakdowns?
They were funny as fuck.
User avatar #137025 to #137020 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Unfortunately, this is something that traditional Republicans are right about. I agree with Sarah Palin on this.
If the government wants to pressure a private company to do something, the best way would be to use government contracts as leverage, threatening to not give them contracts unless they cooperate. Using tariffs and tax incentives to influence the operations of a specific private company is crony capitalism. Following Carrier's example, other companies can also threaten to move jobs overseas in hopes that Trump will give them special benefits to convince them to stay. And then you really do have a situation where the government is strongly interfering in the economy.

If someone is going to redefine the Republican Party, it should be someone with actual political principles and an understanding of how policy works. Someone like Rand Paul. Trump is not that guy - he's simply a populist who promises a big, strong government that will magically take care of everyone's problems, "believe me".
User avatar #137018 to #137015 - pebar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
She's right
User avatar #137016 to #137015 - canyou
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
I was surprised too. Maybe she felt left out? Or maybe she's more honest than we thought.
#137013 - shekelnator
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
User avatar #137007 - canyou
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
Everybody is saying the Taiwan phone call was dangerous because it angered a nuclear power.

Did everyone already forget that Clinton wanted to shoot down Russian aircraft over Syria already?
User avatar #137017 to #137007 - akkere
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
As much as I really hate this meme, a lot of this strikes me as something out of that 93D chess tidbit, even if it ultimately isn't depending on who really made the call.
This whole issue illustrates just how bizarre some foreign policy aspects can get, and in a way, why the people should be aware of this and be able to question it for themselves.
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/trump-taiwan/509474/
digg.com/2016/trump-taiwan-why-is-it-bad-china (Digg is not intended to be the primary source, but the fact that it collects from a dozen other sources to look into, many of which have different sides to this issue)
A large aspect of this issue is foreign ambassadors and analysts making a big deal of something that quite frankly strikes me as totally nonsensical when it's put on paper. That a phone call could somehow launch a hostile policy against China's interests when publicly-known weapons dealings with Taiwan have already been commonplace for decades.
China's never going to be a fan of Trump. His entire policy of being aggressive to China is something he centered his platform on, and last time I checked, was one of the few things he has yet to 180 from. If this truly aggrevates China's leaders - actual leaders, not just their ambassadors and PR guys - then I'm pretty sure we would've been in this position eventually. But I honestly can't see how one could conclude that this is going to be "the call that starts nuclear war" or "the call the reshapes foreign policy for decades to come".
It raises the question as to if there really is a process to foreign policy or if there's something else that lies undertow.
User avatar #137011 to #137007 - Shiny
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
The difference is that the US and China are mutually economically dependent, so we can't thaw relations with the ROC without pissing off the PRC.
User avatar #137012 to #137011 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
In a way it creates a balance of power situation for China. If they want to expand into the South China Sea and build their massive fortress then fine, the United States will not only resist them but also increase support for the Republic of China. It creates a cold war era standoff which admittedly is dangerous, but because we're still "in charge" and, in theory, we're going to be more economically independent while having nato members pick up the pace on their military spending, it boxes China into a corner. I mean China's our "rival" why should we be making all of these concessions to them for free. If they hated this then they're really going to hate being labeled a currency manipulator.


Then again, this was just a phone call and Trump is right, we do send billions of dollars in weapons supplies and aid to the ROC- so it probably doesn't mean much.
User avatar #137008 to #137007 - figatron
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
Why shouldn't we talk to Taiwan? China can complain all they want but what are they gonna do about it?
User avatar #137009 to #137008 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
I guess we'll see. Probably not much. This feels like an overreaction.
User avatar #137010 to #137009 - figatron
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
it is. Are they gonna risk war or a collapse in international trade over a small island? I hope they're not that dumb. Why can't we recognize both as legitimate governments? China hasn't controlled Taiwan for as long as they've been a sovereign government. Until they do let's not let China dictate who we can have diplomatic relationships with in Asia. They'll complain about it, and we'll get over it. Funny how democrats are acting like this means war. LIke do they know how leverage and power plays work?
#137006 - canyou
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
#136998 - woozuh
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
new video please thumb
You need to login to view this link
#136997 - pebar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
The most successful marketing slogan is "made in america"

And it is just that, nothing more than marketing
User avatar #136996 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
General Jim Mad Dog Mattis on the Nature of War If you have time, watch this interview with General Mattis.
User avatar #137001 to #136996 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
He looks to be a genuinely poor candidate which is kinda amusing.
User avatar #137004 to #137001 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
I 100% disagree.
User avatar #137005 to #137004 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
You are 80% wrong.
User avatar #136994 - canyou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
>President of Taiwan calls Trump to congratulate him on winning
>He tweets about it
>Everybody loses their goddamn shit
#136995 to #136994 - anon id: 6cae8bf2
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
>Trump does anything at all
>Everybody loses their goddamn shit
User avatar #136992 - drastronomy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
Look at my flag lotengo
Im coming for you
User avatar #136999 to #136992 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
Why can't we work together?
#136991 - anon id: 6cae8bf2
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
>"Treating Muslims like they're all terrorists will make them become terrorists."
>"Treating African-Americans like they're all criminals will make them become criminals."
>*Treats white people like they're all racists* "OMG WHY ARE SO MANY WHITE PEOPLE BECOMING RACISTS?"
User avatar #137000 to #136991 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
That's great and all, but that PROVES THEIR POINT.
User avatar #137022 to #137000 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Terrorism and violent crime are signifiers of low IQ, rudimentary emotional maturity and base intelligence. If you aren't "racist" in the eyes of social Marxists, you're doing something wrong.
User avatar #137046 to #137022 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
No they are signifies of feeling disenfranchised. Treating people who do bad things as being lesser rather than having tangible problems only seeks to further divide people.
User avatar #137068 to #137046 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/05/2016) [-]
So there's no such thing as bad people, just bad circumstances?
User avatar #137075 to #137068 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/05/2016) [-]
If you think there are bad people then you've been doing life wrong.
User avatar #137077 to #137075 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/05/2016) [-]
You're an idiot.
User avatar #137099 to #137077 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(13 hours ago) [-]
See, doing it wrong. Everything's all backwards.
#137002 to #137000 - anon id: 6cae8bf2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
Then maybe they should stop being hypocrites and stop treating all white people like they're racists.

On top of that, their definition of "racist" is very skewed so they see racism in practically every molecule that composes this planet. Nothing about this really proves their point at all.
User avatar #137003 to #137002 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
Likewise your apparent view of muslims and black people is equally irrational.
#137019 to #137003 - anon id: 6cae8bf2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
Did you even read the post correctly? I wasn't stating my own views of Muslims and black people. Notice the quotation marks? I was imitating people who say that shit but then go on to treat all white people like they're racists and throw their own previous logic right out the window.
User avatar #136993 to #136991 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
Love it. Did you come up with that yourself?
User avatar #136990 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
HILLARYS FINAL DISGRACE o
#136989 - canyou
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
User avatar #136988 - woozuh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
#136987 - woozuh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
My name is Nathan Bedford Reddit
I am the founder and CEO of reddit
#136978 - freizaxplains
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
reposting my question from the retard board because i can find the fucking board on the image boards options, but now i know where shit is.


second off, the recount scam

my understand that if they try to fuck around and not get that shit done those votes are null as in they do not go to one or the other.

so with the electoral college officially stating trump won with 306/232 and SOMEHOW THEY MISS THE DEADLINE he loses, 46 votes but how does he lose the election if he STILL has 260 against the bitches 232? he stills have majority.

as a side note looking at the electoral map provided, half the states that voted killary have about to less that 50% going blue.

any political people here to tell me why the hell he even lose and rather why she got those votes either way
User avatar #137023 to #136978 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/04/2016) [-]
The aim isn't to stop him from being elected, it's to sap his legitimacy before he even takes office. They practically do it with every new Republican president nowadays, it's a ritual at this point.
#136984 to #136978 - freizaxplains
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
update, the retard board has fill me in as to whats up so no need to respond
#136986 to #136984 - anon id: 779f9432
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
HE NEEDS 270
DID YOU GET THAT?
TWO
SEVENTY
TWO HUNNED AND SEVEN-DEEZ
User avatar #136982 to #136978 - pebar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
He needs 270, not just the most
User avatar #136981 to #136978 - marinepenguin
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
Highly doubt they'll take the election from him in the first place. I give it quite honestly a 0% chance.

But, if he goes below 270 electors then it goes to Congress to actually appoint a President. The election isn't "who can get the most electors", it's "who can reach 270".
#136971 - canyou
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
User avatar #137014 to #136971 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/03/2016) [-]
fuckin lol
#136969 - feelythefeel
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
>meeting trannies be like
#136966 - marinepenguin
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
General "mad dog" Mattis is now officially going to be Trumps SecDef.

This is amazing.
User avatar #136979 to #136966 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
Can't wait to hear about how he's racist, sexist, xenophobic, islamophobic and all around deplorable.
User avatar #136980 to #136979 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
Right wing death squads inbound
User avatar #136970 to #136966 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Do you think Trudeau would actually let me if I offered to fuck his wife? No joke?
User avatar #136983 to #136970 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/02/2016) [-]
No
he's a meme and nothing more
User avatar #136972 to #136970 - nigalthornberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
If you say you're at minority at a disadvantage then he'll watch you do it
User avatar #136976 to #136972 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I identify as a black pansexual genderqueer.
User avatar #136967 to #136966 - nigalthornberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Aw fuck yes
#136968 to #136967 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
There hasn't anyone more revered in the US military than him since Chesty.


Most men would follow him onto the beaches of Normandy with nothing more than a squirt gun.
User avatar #136973 to #136968 - nigalthornberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I feel so patriotic right now
I've had a shitty few months but Trump and all of this happening makes up for it
User avatar #136974 to #136973 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
If Trump just doesn't send me to war against Russia then I'll have considered it a successful 4-8 years.
User avatar #136975 to #136974 - nigalthornberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I don't expect any real wars in the next few years
User avatar #136977 to #136975 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Hope you're right.
#136923 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
why are people happy that OPEC is restricting the supply of oil?
User avatar #136957 to #136923 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I suppose it means people will be more likely to pursue renewables which is good.
User avatar #136927 to #136923 - marinepenguin
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I've heard some people say that keeping oil at a price that's profitable for oil companies allows for practices like fracking to be affordable, thus giving us a larger supply of oil in the long run.

I think that OPEC needs to die though, and that we're just allowing the continuation of backwards monarchs like the Sauds.

Personally I think we should do business with Venezuela and try to actually make them more capitalistic and wealthy.

Make the western hemisphere great again I say.
User avatar #136925 to #136923 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Environmentalists are probably happy about it
User avatar #136926 to #136925 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I can't imagine why
the increased price will encourage more domestic production of oil, which is what they're usually concerned about
User avatar #136928 to #136926 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
A lot of them want to limit the use of oil as much as possible until alternative energy resources catch up with it.

They're doing the same thing where I live. I'll use cars as an example.
They make it as expensive as possible to drive with fossil fuel, subsidise electric cars so people are being forced to switch that way.
User avatar #136929 to #136928 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Unless your nation runs off of essentially 100% renewable energy or nuclear power, the electricity powering your cars is produced by plants burning fossil fuels anyways.
User avatar #136930 to #136929 - whoozy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
99% of it comes from renewable water energy

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway
User avatar #136931 to #136930 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Damn you Norway and all your fjords and mountainous terrain.
User avatar #136932 to #136931 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Yup
We're lucky with that one

Still our politicians won't shut up about the environment.

Make a GOOD electric car that isn't overly expensive and I'll consider buying one.
User avatar #136933 to #136932 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
That's definitely good for you guys, energy is probably super cheap too I would imagine.

Don't you have ridiculous taxes on cars or is that just for gas powered vehicles?
User avatar #136934 to #136933 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Hah you would think it was cheap, but nah. Gotta feed that socialist society.

We have ridiculous taxes on almost everything.

Electric cars are one of the few exceptions. This is to encourage people to switch. Once enough people have switched the taxes will return.

At least I can go to University for free.
User avatar #136936 to #136934 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Funny thing about free university is that either your taxes pay for you to go for free, or they pay for someone else to go there for free.
User avatar #136938 to #136936 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Yeah.
It's all funded by taxmoney.

Most people are fine with that. It's good to have a well educated population.

Besides it's not like people don't make enough money here.
I make 20$ an hour on my shitty summer job with almost no requirements.

I don't even wanna know what people with good jobs make.
User avatar #136939 to #136938 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I'm not debating upon whether a more highly educated society is better than a less educated one.

I just find the means to be immoral.
User avatar #136940 to #136939 - whoozy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I'd imagine you feel like you're forced to pay for others. I don't think of it that way.

You're being given an education for free so that you can get a good job and repay society that way. Your tax money will fund the next generation of students.
User avatar #136941 to #136940 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I typed out a whole long response to that, but I decided not to post it because there's no real point.

I'll just say that I'd strongly fight similar policies that are trying to be implemented by the left here in the US.
User avatar #136942 to #136941 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
It's cool.

I know there's a lot of disagreements on these issues. I believe our country is too left leaning myself.

Unchecked capitalism however is a bad thing in my opinion.
User avatar #136943 to #136942 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I don't think pure capitalism is a 100% great either. But the only regulation I really support is child labor laws and some environmental regulation. Otherwise the free market can take care of most things without government interference in my opinion.

Problem the US isn't a capitalistic society anymore. It's become one of corporatism, with our massive regulations stifling small businesses and the old mom and pop shops.

I strongly believe that a largely capitalistic society is the most conducive for human liberty.
User avatar #136944 to #136943 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I don't believe it does. For example I think healthcare should be free for everyone. It's unfair for a person to be screwed over financially for life if they happen to be born with an expensive illness. Life always comes before money for me.

If someone can't get a job I believe they should be given the the minimum for a decent life. We have more than enough money to pay for that. The poor are treated awfully in most of the world. I think we can do better.

One last thing about capitalism that it's important to remember is that it is dependent on continuous growth.
Sooner or later we have to stop growing. There isn't infinite resources.
Sooner or later it has to stop.
User avatar #136950 to #136944 - figatron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Heathcare isn't free regardless. There's no such thing as free. The easiest way to make healthcare cheaper for everyone is to dismantle the huge relationship between government and insurance companies. We might be better off eliminating insurance altogether(except for a minimal catastrophic care package). You go into a doctor's office and pay for what you need. It makes costs more flexible for doctor and patient.

That drives up costs for everyone. A man who flunked out of high school gets paid $30,000 a year because he deserves a decent life and doesn't work because why should he? Costs of living must necessarily go up because now demand has gone up because the poor can now afford new things. What happens to an entry level college graduate who used to work for the same wage but now must also do so with an increase in the cost of living? Someone who had a good academic record and did everything he was supposed to must now live in semi-poverty barely affording rent and food.

That third thing has largely been proven false. They've been saying ability to produce food will not keep up with population growth since Malthus hundreds of years ago. The point where we do not produce enough for the population has never even come close to being true. The reason is the technological innovation makes food production more efficient and new ways to produce goods become available. Scarcity won't be the death of capitalism, it's the very reason it works.
User avatar #136952 to #136950 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Of course not. Everyone understands this. A collective safety net just makes sure that the poorest of us still get help. No one is left to suffering. Your system would be fine for those that can afford what they need. If you can't... well you've got a whole lot of pain ahead of you.

When I said a decent life I meant enough to get by with some sort of dignity. People want to work because jobs pay A LOT more than not working. I think you'll find that those with a good academic record is very grateful for this system. A lot of them wouldn't have been able to go to university without it.

False how? Population has shown absolutely no sign of slowing down. We're growing exponentially faster every year. The rainforests are dying quicker than ever.
Even of you disregard all of this it should be obvious that a planet can only provide a set amount of resources. We cannot have as many humans on the planet as we want.
User avatar #136947 to #136944 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
The first two things you mentioned pertain the large minority of people, in terms of those who are terminally ill or can't get a job due to health concerns. That's where the idea of a safety net SHOULD be used.

My whole problem with government sponsored ANYTHING is that it's always more costly and inefficient compared to private options. I don't want "free" government healthcare that everyone has to pay for regardless of whether you're using it, I want competitive and high quality private healthcare that's cheap enough to where anyone can afford it. There are so many regulations on private healthcare that something like 80% of costs are for the overhead to just run the hospital or pharmaceutical company.

Same goes for college within the US. College costs were easily affordable until the US government started subsidizing student loans, that's when costs began to skyrocket exponentially, not because capitalism failed.

And even if there weren't essentially infinite resources and wealth within the universe or even our solar system, capitalism doesn't require infinite growth, our current system of debt based currency does. Capitalism is essentially just built upon voluntary transactions and competition to create the highest quality product for the lowest possible price.
User avatar #136955 to #136947 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I don't feel like I'm doing you justice right now, but I have to leave now and get some stuff done.

I agree with a lot of what you say and disagree with some.

Before I go there is just one thing I want to briefly comment on. I very much agree that we need a form of middle ground. Going too far left is bad. Going too far right is also bad. If we can strike a balance then perhaps we eventually can calm the eternal conflict of the left and right.
User avatar #136949 to #136947 - whoozy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
Glad we agree on the first points at least.

I'm not going to hide anything to make my views look good.
You're absolutely right. Government companies is inherently more costly and inefficient than private business. Private insurance will be cheaper and more effective. That being said I've never seen a society where "everyone" can afford healthcare on their own. There's ALWAYS outliers. I think it's very wrong to just let these outliers suffer.
Insurance companies HAVE to make a profit. This is why life becomes hell for people with expensive conditions.

This is why I support both. We have a pretty good free healthcare system and an even better, but expensive private sector. If you want free healthcare you'll have to accept that it's slower and less efficient. If you want it faster you're more than free to pay for it yourself.

I wasn't aware that it was a difference between the two (the debt based currency and capitalism). I have a hard time imagining capitalism without it.
One of the main problems with unchecked capitalism is that we produce way more than we need. A lot of resources are just thrown away. It is no secret that we're reaching the limit of what our planet can handle.
User avatar #136953 to #136949 - marinepenguin
+1 123456789123345869
(12/01/2016) [-]
I've always believed that one role of government is to provide a safety net for the most impoverished or the disabled. My problem is with a massive welfare state.

Well sure, but in an largely unregulated society I believe that the number of people who can't afford these things will become smaller. Again, the most impoverished people should have some sort of option to try and lead them to a greater quality of life.

That's a decent middle ground, there are similar systems in Canada I'm pretty sure, but I still see it as a largely immoral practice to take money from citizens who would otherwise want to opt out of such a system. I also think that the poor tend to fare better from individual and private charity from a more free society, compared to government welfare.

Well yeah, there are plenty of countries who have debt based currencies that are largely not capitalistic, the EU nations are an example of that. I highly doubt that even Norway has a currency based on something like Gold or Silver.

A surplus of product should be a great thing about Capitalism! The fact that we produce far more than we need ISN'T a problem, the problem of being inefficient with these resources is a problem of society in general, not an economic one. If we learned to make the most of the abundance of resources that we are able to produce, we would be able to far more easily increase our "bottom line" of our quality of life for the most abject poor.