Poll

Can't ___ the Trump?

Can't stump the Trump
15 (13.2%)
Can't hump the Trump
16 (14%)
Can't dump the Trump
6 (5.3%)
Can't bump the Trump
1 (0.9%)
Can't chump the Trump
2 (1.8%)
Can't jump the Trump
3 (2.6%)
Can't slump the Trump
2 (1.8%)
Can't thump the Trump
5 (4.4%)
Can't TRUMP the Trump.
53 (46.5%)
Yes we can!
11 (9.6%)

Total Members Voted: 109

Author Topic: 2016 US Presidential Elections (Now with politics!)  (Read 247634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gluk the Walrus

  • Che Guevara's American Cousin
  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 4779
  • Ex-NANWL Moderator | #RemoveAussies
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Gluk The Walrus
  • Side: Union
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2015, 07:16:09 pm »
Gluk must be poor lol work harder m8
You must be entitled lol think harder m8

Offline KurassierNixon

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Nemo me impune lacessit
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Panini
  • Side: Union
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2015, 07:18:01 pm »
Gluk must be poor lol work harder m8
You must be entitled lol think harder m8

Gospel of Work

Offline Nipplestockings

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 8609
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #32 on: April 13, 2015, 07:19:37 pm »
Oh lord. Sweet baby jesus.

Do you ever get that thing where you cringe so hard one of your eyelids involuntarily squeeze shut? Yeah, that just happened to me.

my face right now:



But also:

Quote
Yes i USED to be a libertarian (meaning that i am not currently) and as i said, i only support libertarians on SOCIAL issues, not economic.

So you supported literally the only part of libertarianism that is not unique to the ideology? You're just a social liberal then. You supported no parts of libertarianism that make it what it is.

Offline Augy

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 2970
  • Anarchist. Absurdist. Existentialist. Man. Human.
    • View Profile
    • The Royal Recruits
  • Nick: -[TRR]- Cpt. Augy
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2015, 07:25:48 pm »
“Ego is a structure that is erected by a neurotic individual who is a member of a neurotic culture against the facts of the matter. And culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviors are acceptable.” -Terence McKenna

Offline Nipplestockings

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 8609
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2015, 07:27:55 pm »


Same shit. Both of these images are retarded.

Offline Gluk the Walrus

  • Che Guevara's American Cousin
  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 4779
  • Ex-NANWL Moderator | #RemoveAussies
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Gluk The Walrus
  • Side: Union
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2015, 07:30:27 pm »
Quote
Yes i USED to be a libertarian (meaning that i am not currently) and as i said, i only support libertarians on SOCIAL issues, not economic.

So you supported literally the only part of libertarianism that is not unique to the ideology? You're just a social liberal then. You supported no parts of libertarianism that make it what it is.
It's like you don't understand what i am saying. I used to be a libertarian (both on economic and social issues). I then later changed my ideology based on things i read. I currently support libertarians on social issues and not economic. Meaning that i USED to support the idea of a free market system but changed my thoughts on economics based on classes i was taking and things i read, ect. Does that make sense to you now?

Also i love how you keep implying that i am stupid and that you cringe when talking to me about politics yet you provide no serious counter arguments to my main points. If your ideology was so correct, so set in stone, so perfect that everyone can support it then you would have no problems refuting me. Yet you don't.

Also it's funny that you both posted anti-communism/anti-capitalist memes when what i've been saying from the beginning is that neither capitalism nor communism are perfect systems.

Offline MaxLam

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 1343
  • Founder of Minisiege, EU_Commander & Mininaval
    • View Profile
    • Napoleonic Wars Public
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2015, 07:32:48 pm »
Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito are missing on the capitalist meme.   :-\

Also Polpot could fit on both:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2014/04/how-thatcher-gave-pol-pot-hand

Offline KurassierNixon

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Nemo me impune lacessit
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Panini
  • Side: Union
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2015, 07:33:18 pm »
Gluk please don't reproduce.

Offline Gluk the Walrus

  • Che Guevara's American Cousin
  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 4779
  • Ex-NANWL Moderator | #RemoveAussies
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Gluk The Walrus
  • Side: Union
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2015, 07:36:27 pm »
Gluk please don't reproduce.
Give me counter arguments instead of implying i am stupid. It's not helping you at all, in fact it's making you seem ignorant to outside views of your own. It's like you only listen to libertarian arguments and bark like a seal in favor of it, but when someone says something that opposes it, instead of actually listening to what they have to say, you just imply that they don't understand libertarianism and that they must be wrong.

Offline Nipplestockings

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 8609
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2015, 07:36:38 pm »
I'm not going to seriously argue with you because that would require me to put in effort, which I'm not going to do. Your original views on libertarianism weren't clear to me, so I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying there, though.

The burden of proof is not on me anyway. You're the one who originally claimed that the lack of public education would prevent poor people from receiving any education whatsoever. It's not on me to refute that until you actually provide proof. And no, you saying that "Well this would happen and this would happen because economics and shit EVERYONE knows is true so I'm right!" doesn't actually prove anything.

Offline KurassierNixon

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Nemo me impune lacessit
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Panini
  • Side: Union
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2015, 07:37:53 pm »
Gluk please don't reproduce.
Give me counter arguments instead of implying i am stupid. It's not helping you at all, in fact it's making you seem ignorant to outside views of your own. It's like you only listen to libertarian arguments and bark like a seal in favor of it, but when someone says something that opposes it, instead of actually listening to what they have to say, you just imply that they don't understand libertarianism and that they must be wrong.

I like seals  :'(

Offline USE4life

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3306
  • Queen of Yorkshire
    • View Profile
    • http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/
  • Nick: Kicked out the K-KA_USE4life
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2015, 07:52:00 pm »
Stealing your thread idea for UK election ty.

Offline KurassierNixon

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Nemo me impune lacessit
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Panini
  • Side: Union
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2015, 07:55:22 pm »
Stealing your thread idea for UK election ty.

Dont you guys have a queen or something? gtfo #rekt

Offline Gluk the Walrus

  • Che Guevara's American Cousin
  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 4779
  • Ex-NANWL Moderator | #RemoveAussies
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Gluk The Walrus
  • Side: Union
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2015, 07:59:05 pm »
I'm not going to seriously argue with you because that would require me to put in effort, which I'm not going to do. Your original views on libertarianism weren't clear to me, so I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying there, though.

The burden of proof is not on me anyway. You're the one who originally claimed that the lack of public education would prevent poor people from receiving any education whatsoever. It's not on me to refute that until you actually provide proof. And no, you saying that "Well this would happen and this would happen because economics and shit EVERYONE knows is true so I'm right!" doesn't actually prove anything.
You want proof? Alright, Private schools can charge well over $50,000 a year for their services. (1)The average american household earns about $46,000 a year.(2) It is likely that a privatized system would be similar to private colleges. With tuition costs rising(3), it isn't unlikely to see the same happen to a completely privatized education system. Let me ask you, how would families be able to afford it? Student loan debt continues to pile up on America's college graduates, topping an average $29,000 per student last year. (4) How are families going to pay this on a YEARLY basis, remember that this won't be for 4 years, this will be for 12. Of course college is more expensive then K-12 but it isn't unreasonable to say that the costs for the average american family would be too much to bare. This expensive would either bankrupt families or instead their children would go without education.

Now let me go onto explain why the public option is better for all. In the United States, we allocate tax money to provide education. This tax money is collected through every american, regardless of if they have children or not. Everyone pays for education via taxation. By doing this, it makes the actual cost of education per person go down since the money is coming from more sources (the american taxpayer). According to recovery dot gov - $58,556,223,831 has been allocated to the Department of Education. The IRS collected $2.4 trillion dollars in 2009, making the percentage allocated for education 2.4 percent. (5)(These percentages rose since then). This means that on average, each american pays roughly 3% of their taxes purely for education. Every american pays about 17% of their household income on taxes. (6) Which comes to $7,820 on average per household. Which comes out to $234.60 for every american to pay purely for education tax. This of course is not an official total (just did this on a calculator) but even with a margin of error, the cost of education is significantly less if done through the public option.

http://www.privateschoolreview.com/articles/244 (1)
"Private schools charge everything from nothing at all to well over $50,000 a year for their services."
Upon further reading you find that "nothing at all" comes from students who gain admission through scholarships.
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-breaking-down-the-us-household-income-numbers/ (2)
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/24/pf/college/public-college-tuition/index.html (3)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/04/pf/college/student-loan-debt/index.html (4)
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_federal_income_taxes_goes_to_education (5)
Of course this wouldn't be a valid source since its both old and comes from a questionable source, here is a more accurate look.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html (5)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/ (6)
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 08:15:56 pm by Glukhovsky »

Offline Nipplestockings

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 8609
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: 2016 US Presidential Elections
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2015, 08:02:31 pm »
That's not what I asked for proof of. I have to go though, so we'll continue this later.