> the long discredit campaign began
You think too little of Hillary. She broke the glass ceiling on that one and did it nearly all be herself.
206 karma · joined August 19, 2014
You think too little of Hillary. She broke the glass ceiling on that one and did it nearly all be herself.
Believing what lie?
You mean the man who will likely have a homosexual man (Peter Thiel) lead his transition team.
> stop Muslims from entering the country
I don't agree with this, but I also don't agree with what's going on in countries like France. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. The unfortunate fact is that if you even mention immigration in a less than positive light, you're labeled a racist or a xenophobe. And now the other side has fought back. They've elected someone who gives them at least somewhat of a voice. Had the left not been so aggressive at trying to pin those with a dissenting voice (both on the left and the right really), I suspect we would be in a very different position today.
Trump has flaws, and I take issue with many of his positions, but this anti-gay and racist argument just doesn't hold up. I look forward to the day we can start debating policy again.
That's the kind of elitism that put Trump into power.
That aside, I'm glad to see that some leftists are starting to come around to the idea that through trying to fight bigotry, they themselves have become the bigots. I'm not saying Donald Trump is right when it comes to issues of nationalism and immigration, but very intelligent and well meaning people exists on both sides of that debate. I'm afraid that if we don't start a dialog soon, Trump will seem like a walk in the park compared to what extremist movement will come up next.
In the western world we're incredibly tolerant to other people's religion, lifestyles, etc. If someone is intolerant to the point that they get offended from hearing "Merry Christmas", then it's clearly time to re-examine their own lives.
I don't believe that most people are so intolerant as to allow themselves to be offended when they hear "Merry Christmas". If they truly are that intolerant to western customs, then I don't think it's right give them a pass. Tolerance goes both ways.
It clearly has. Had it not been for Wikileaks, and various online news organizations we would never have known the sheer amount of corruption afoot in this election, as well as the extent of the death grip political elites have on the entire system. I suppose old media has just become too entrenched and cozy with those in power to speak truth to power.
"a recent BuzzFeed analysis of top political pages on Facebook showed that right-wing sites published false or misleading information 38 percent of the time, and lefty sites did so 20 percent of the time."
In a recent analysis by the ultra-leftist junk news site Buzzfeed, they've found that right wing sites are worst than left wing sites. Wow, that's some great journalism right there. That kind of reporting is why we should ignore new media and stick with the old.
It was also praised by progressives at the time. Harvard’s Arthur Holcombe said that these laws “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese.” Florence Kelley said that the laws were “redeeming the sweated trades” by preventing the “unbridled competition” of the unemployable, the “women, children, and Chinese were reducing all the employees to starvation”.
There was a time where we understood the economic impacts of so called minimum wage. We knew that it made it illegal for low skilled workers to be employed. Fast forward to today, if a homeless person cannot produce at a rate of $13.00, which is San Francisco minimum wage, they are not allowed to work. It's against the law! So though it might not solve every case, it would surely help if it were legal for them to hold a job.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-th...
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-claim-that-minimum-wage-laws-ha...
Hilarious! This is exactly what I'm talking about! You have no idea how he got to his position, but you've already made up your mind as to how he got there. And to top it off, you go on this big rant that places you above him in terms of virtue because obviously he's "an arrogant economic royalist" and you're not therefore you're better.
It's fine with me if you want to behave that way. All I'm suggesting is that if you want to be intellectually honest, then you need to explore the 'why' of a person's viewpoint, rather than commit the fundamental attribution error and simply make up the 'why'.
There is nothing mathematical or logical about value judgements. Those are two fields that pride themselves in that. You are deciding that the opinion is idiotic because it's not your own opinion.
>If I hear additional information, I am happy to revise my opinion if necessary.
But for the time being you're willing to paint someone as an idiot without knowing why they've developed certain opinions. It's a classic case of the fundamental attribution error.
Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to say rather than just paint them as idiots because they don't believe what you believe.
I'll stick with the numbers.
>try to travel a bit. For people who have actually been around the world
I don't live in the United States, and I've done plenty of traveling. I'm giving you the facts, and you're ascribing motive and/or a viewpoint. You're saying that the only way I can possibly believe what I believe is because I haven't seen the world. Out of respect for each other and the discussion, why don't we assume that both of us have seen the world and instead stick to the facts.
> America has the highest level of inequality of any rich country. Look it up.
So what? I don't care if Elon Musk retires and plays golf on Mars for the rest of his days, not if that means reduced automotive emissions and a better life for everyone here. The better metric is how well are the poor in the US doing as compared to other countries like the ones you've mentioned.
> I've never been to a developed country where you see so much depravity
I don't know how to quantify that.
> Ok by Indian and Chinese standard, America is probably extremely generous
Exactly, and it's be cause we have a lot of rich people here that pay lots of taxes.
The US spends so much, that social security and medicare combined have nearly 33 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. To give you a sense of scale, that's half of the world's gdp. In terms of taxes, there are 4 payees for every beneficiary and it's estimated that by 2030 that number will be 2 to 1.
When you sift through all the propaganda, America is financially imploding because it gives so much. So feel what you wish, but to state that the services are underfunded doesn't match reality.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/17/you-think-th...
The alternative is government, but this is clearly a case where they've failed. Federal, state, and local governments haven't provided any comparable services, only the private sector did, and with no government funding.
I think the liberal (or north-american libertarian) way, would include local community areas run by individuals within said community similar to a co-op. Remember that liberalism doesn't tell you HOW you have get together, only that politicians can't create a one size fits all solution and force everyone to pay for it.
i.e. You and non-participating parties were paying for it through taxes. So the transaction fee was hidden by layers of bureaucracy but was still existent.
Side note: I find it interesting how media outlets decide what the debate is, create a false dichotomy, then us simpletons are just suppose to pick a side.
What do you think chuck? Is it ok that they're stealing jobs?
While dodging a question about his understanding of economics. Forgive me, I'm just a bitter Canadian upset that we're now running a huge deficit and passing the buck on to our children.
Shame on me for clicking that link.
Sincerely,
An embarrassment to millennials
Why do you say that?