|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Ezuma] 1
#23681961 - 09/27/16 01:35 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Here's a debate summary which ONLY includes real ideas the candidates had about various issues. I left out the "I would be SOOO much more presidential than my opponent" stuff. The debate was divided into three sections - Achieving Prosperity, America's Direction, and Securing America.
Achieving Prosperity
Clinton said: Government should invest more in: - Infrastructure - Advanced manufacturing - Innovation and technology - Clean renewable energy - Small business Government needs to: - Raise minimum wage - Ensure women get equal pay for equal work - Motivate companies profit share with employees - Provide paid family leave - Offer affordable child care (Trump agreed) - Offer debt free college - Increase taxes on the wealthy (Trump said he wants to cut taxes on the wealthy) - Close corporate tax loopholes - Decrease regulations for small business (Trump said he wants to decrease regulations for all business)
Trump said: Government needs to: - Stop private corporations from shipping jobs overseas - Increase taxes on imports - Cut corporate taxes - Renegotiate trade deals - Decrease regulations (Clinton wants to decrease regulations for small business) - Cut taxes for the wealthy (Hillary wants to increase them on the wealthy) - Renegotiate NAFTA (Hillary defended NAFTA)
America’s Direction
Clinton said Government needs to: - Restore trust with police by preparing them better when and how to use force - Train police on race issues and respecting the rights of all citizens - Send fewer people to jail for non-violent offenses - Get rid of mandatory minimums and create more second chance programs - Get rid of private prisons - Not sell weapons to people on the terrorist list (Trump agreed)
Trump said Government needs to: - Bring back stop and frisk (which was ruled unconstitutional, but Trump claims it would win on appeal) - Not sell weapons to people on the terrorist list (Clinton agreed)
Securing America
Clinton said Government needs to: - Intensify air strikes against ISIS and take out their leaders - Work more closely with NATO to fight terrorism - Cooperate with US Muslims to fight terror at home - Prevent nuclear proliferation - Defend its allies around the world
Trump said Government needs to: - Fight ISIS a lot harder than we have been - Make 28 NATO member countries to pay their fair share (said US pays 73%) - Make NATO focus more on terror - Eliminate nuclear weapons and do away with our first strike doctrine - Force Iran to deal with N Korea’s nukes as part of nuclear deal
There were a lot of personal attacks, which I left out of this summary because I believe they are largely irrelevant to what each candidate would actually do as president.
In summary, I think Clinton won the first two areas (though I wasn't fond of Clinton supporting NAFTA), while Trump won the last.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: DividedQuantum]
#23684733 - 09/27/16 10:03 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: You do realize that the federal government is over a million civilian employees running the country, right? Most of what it does is necessary in an administrative sense. The money's not all just wasted. Although for me, the biggest elephant in the room is a Department of Defense that gets over half a trillion dollars every year. Cut that some and there are very few remaining budgetary issues (discretionary).
^^^THIS^^^
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
#23684753 - 09/27/16 10:11 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: The 5 trillion is actually the reduction in Federal Revenue (over 10 years). Saying his plan will add 5 trillion to the debt is making the assumption that he isn't going to cut the budget.
And history shows that's a VERY realistic assumption. Congress isn't going to cut shit.
Quote:
amp244 said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Dude, you cannot be a presidential candidate and say you're smart because you paid no taxes!!! You can rationalize it however you want, but that is simply ludicrous. Has anyone ever heard of the common good? Civic duty? Don't give me some crap about the tax code.
Its clear you don't understand business. Trump is a businessman and a good one. He has a duty to his investors to minimize his business's tax burden and maximize his earnings.
Once again, quantum is right. He didn't question Trump's business sense, he questioned the fact that Trump brags about screwing over the Government. Not a good move for a politician, imho.
Plus, he has zero duty to his investor's to minimize his personal income tax, which is what he was talking about.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
#23684783 - 09/27/16 10:25 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Oh so paying taxes is a good way to insure the salaries of all these people?
How do you want roads, schools, Congress, etc. to be paid for?
Quote:
amp244 said: Well then not paying them and hiring more people yourself is doing the exact same thing.
Are YOU going to hire people to pay for MY freeways?
Quote:
amp244 said: The private sector can do just fine, you don't need to have a states-worth of gov't employees to create jobs.
No one said we should replace the private sector with Government. But certain things should come from the Government, such as freeways.
Quote:
amp244 said: You need to incentivize PRIVATE investment.
Of course.
Quote:
amp244 said: Either way the employee salaries aren't the issue, its the "defense" spending, as you've said. Trump says he wants to 'strengthen our military' but he knows that the $600billion yearly is being pissed away to government contractors who are literally ripping off the taxpayer. I'm talking blatant fraud. So we'll see what that means as far as a defense budget. I haven't really looked, perhaps the info is out there. Does Trump plan on maintaining a $600billion/year defense budget?
And we agree - Defense needs to be seriously cut. Good luck getting that through Congress.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
#23685294 - 09/28/16 03:09 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: You know, there was a time when there was no such thing as the Income Tax in this country. People take for granted that there needs to be a massive gov't fucking with the economy for things to run correctly. They don't read far enough into history to take note of all of the prosperity that took place while the Federal Gov't sat on the sidelines(comparatively), and people took care of themselves.
That "prosperity" was great for the upper class. But there was never a large middle class until Government created one. Here nor anywhere else.
Quote:
amp244 said: How ever did we manage the Industrial Revolution without our precious Income Tax, Federal Reserve, and Inflation? How were people eating without the constant devaluation of the currency?
It wasn't easy. There Government couldn't afford to pay for a strong military, inflation (and deflation) were hugely unstable, and there were many banking panics where people lost everything.
Quote:
amp244 said:
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: Oh and ya boy Bernie didn't pay any taxes that didn't amount to just handing the gov't its own money back, lol.

What's your point? That Bernie shouldn't pay taxes?
Quote:
amp244 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
amp244 said: Oh so paying taxes is a good way to insure the salaries of all these people?
How do you want roads, schools, Congress, etc. to be paid for?
Quote:
amp244 said: Well then not paying them and hiring more people yourself is doing the exact same thing.
Are YOU going to hire people to pay for MY freeways?
Quote:
amp244 said: The private sector can do just fine, you don't need to have a states-worth of gov't employees to create jobs.
No one said we should replace the private sector with Government. But certain things should come from the Government, such as freeways.
Quote:
amp244 said: You need to incentivize PRIVATE investment.
Of course.
Quote:
amp244 said: Either way the employee salaries aren't the issue, its the "defense" spending, as you've said. Trump says he wants to 'strengthen our military' but he knows that the $600billion yearly is being pissed away to government contractors who are literally ripping off the taxpayer. I'm talking blatant fraud. So we'll see what that means as far as a defense budget. I haven't really looked, perhaps the info is out there. Does Trump plan on maintaining a $600billion/year defense budget?
And we agree - Defense needs to be seriously cut. Good luck getting that through Congress.
Falcon you befuddle every argument with this bull shit^^^
Look at your first two quotes above. The first is a fucking rhetorical question. You aren't supposed to answer that, we all know the answer. It came right before your next quote, which bemused you and triggered a nonsensical question.
No, it's not rhetorical; I was responding to your question "so paying taxes is a good way to insure the salaries of all these people?" The answer is yes, of course it is; how else would we pay for such things?
Quote:
amp244 said: I was debating with quantum and I'd appreciate if you'd let Quantum answer and rebut for Quantum, who is quite capable and doesn't pull this type of shit.
Yes, he IS very capable. But I'd still like an answer to the question of how you'd pay for things if people like Trump don't pay taxes?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] 1
#23687993 - 09/28/16 07:04 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Poverty wasn’t a major problem in the U.S. like it is today until the mid 19th century.
If you have evidence to prove you didn't just make that up, I'd love to see it.
Quote:
amp244 said: yes they had taxes, as the gov’t always has. The difference between a tax on whiskey and the tax on income, is the tax on income is a tax on a necessity, while the tax on whiskey is on a luxury.
So taxing something a poor person might like to use is a luxury tax, while taxing a millionaire on his income is a tax on a "necessity"? 
Quote:
amp244 said: When you tax nearly half of someone or something’s income, you are creating a huge disincentive toward production and prosperity.
Empirical studies of the Laffer curve prove that is a false claim:
63.5% - Mathias Trabandt, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve & Harald Uhlig, Department of Economics, University of Chicago 70% - Charles L. Ballard, Don Fullerton, John B. Shoven, and John Whalley, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) 84% - Christina D. Romer, Department of Economics, UC Berkeley and David H. Romer, Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley 83% - Thomas Piketty, Professor, Paris School of Economics, Emmanuel Saez, Professor of Economics UC Berkeley
The mid range of studies show the Laffer curve doesn't peak until around a 70% tax rate. After all, would you rather earn $1 billion and get taxed at 70%, or would you rather earn nothing and pay no taxes???
Quote:
amp244 said: I don’t understand how people think taxing people is a way to grow anything in the macro sense. You are just shifting money from one pocket to the next, the arithmetic just doesn’t work out. Churchill and I “contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” If you want to rob the rich and give to the poor, than that’s what you want to do, but that isn’t going to grow the economy.
I don't think people are arguing taxation leads to growth, but you just nailed a great reason for it. You tax people who keep all the wealth their employees earn for them, and then you restore some of it back to those employees so they can consume more thereby helping the economy.
Quote:
amp244 said: An economy grows as its demand for labor grows. Its demand for labor grows as landlords and investors seize on opportunities to turn a profit.
If there is a demand for a product, entrepreneurs will fill that demand. Increased demand comes from getting more money into the hands of many consumers rather than few billionaires.
Quote:
amp244 said: When your gov’t kills the profit incentive and sets up policies to take what the rich have earned through prudence, you drive money and jobs out of the country. So go ahead with your ambitions to lessen the wealth disparity by destroying wealth and the economy at large, as if one is kept poor by virtue of the fact that one is wealthy.
Again, the profit incentive isn't killed until the tax rate is over 70% (which I am NOT arguing for). Globalism does create unique challenges, which Bernie and Trump have been addressing.
Quote:
amp244 said: I agree with you on one thing. When you say money has corrupted the gov’t, I agree, with one qualification: I would change “money” to “Wall Street” or “Special-Interests”. I think money in and of itself gets a bad rep and that in its absence the power to control and direct the labor of other men would still be the object of exploitative entities, and that money is but a necessary vehicle for exchange in an advanced economy with the division of labor; but that’s a completely different argument. When people contend that the super-rich aren’t pulling their fair share, then concede that the super-rich are controlling the government, they should then realize that these super-rich CREATED the big government in order to SOLIDIFY and INSURE their presence as our masters.
Agreed.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
#23688152 - 09/28/16 07:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Falcon you are just incredibly confused. The laffer curve represents the relationship between tax rates and government revenue. It has nothing to do with economic growth. So congratulations on being irrelevant. I'm focusing on economic growth, not maximum effective government taxation.
Why do you think government revenue goes down when the tax rate reaches a certain level? Because people become disincentivized to work at that point. I was responding to your statement that "When you tax nearly half of someone or something’s income, you are creating a huge disincentive toward production and prosperity." But the fact is that people continue to work until the tax rate gets to around 70%, disproving your point. Sure, people might be upset with a 50% tax rate, but it won't stop them from working because 50% of a lot is better than 100% of nothing.
Quote:
amp244 said: Also all of those sources show multiple different curves based on different levels of labor supply elasticity. The demand for labor has a major impact on the laffer curve, as your sources state, you just handpicked the ones you liked.
I picked every study I could find from a reputable source. If you have others from a reputable source showing something different, please post.
Quote:
amp244 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: If there is a demand for a product, entrepreneurs will fill that demand.
-Unless there isn't a profit margin large enough to risk the investment because the government pumped its taxes up to 70%.
Once again: "the profit incentive isn't killed until the tax rate is over 70% (which I am NOT arguing for)."
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
#23688952 - 09/28/16 11:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Your argument is fallacious. Firstly because the 70% determination is not a static, final answer figure and 2nd your conclusion that the 70% figure means that "people are working until they are taxed at 70%" is just simply a non sequitur.
The number is somewhere between 60% and 80%. My point is that a 50% tax rate isn't enough to disincentivize production and prosperity as you claimed, and we have historical evidence to prove it. The Laffer curve supports this argument and I explained why.
Quote:
amp244 said: I understand you struggle with intermediate level concepts so I'll just let you argue with yourself from here on out.
I'm not struggling with anything, except your expecting people to believe something just because you say it's so. I'll take empirical evidence over amateur hypothesis any day.
Quote:
amp244 said: Although I sure would like to hear from Quantum or Relic, instead of Falcon. We were enjoying quite a few pages of Falcon free debate until just recently here, now every post is getting chopped to shit, taken out of context, obfuscated, and shat all over.
I'd like to hear more from Quantum and Relic as well. They're good posters.
Now, since you've accused me of taking things out of context, I'd like you to back it up with evidence.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244]
#23690170 - 09/29/16 11:11 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: There are a lot of "Conspiracy Theories" that become fact after 10-20 years of "crazy" people whistleblowing and the documents surface.
Heres a good example of how scientists can actually influence your nervous system through electromagnetic frequencies emitted through your television set, based on pulsating images on the screen! They could be doing this right now to your computer screen, you'd have no idea. Its all a crazy conspiracy theory until you get ahold of the patents.
https://www.google.com.au/patents/US6506148
Yay!!!!! But for real check out the inventor, Hendricus G. Loos. Dude has like 12 patents for inventions that influence people's nervous system. There is one for a subsonic acoustic noise that does the same thing.
Wow, now that's off topic! So what does it mean to you to "manipulate the nervous system"? Hopefully you don't think it means mind control. 
And according to the patent, it only works with tube TV's and monitors, which have long gone out of popularity.
So no examples of me taking anything out of context? No logical rebuttals to the long list of points I've made? No evidence for any of the things I asked for?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] 1
#23691920 - 09/29/16 07:49 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Falcon, I'm embarrassed for you at this point. Google "nervous system" to find out why. What does mind control mean to you? I think manipulating the nervous system means manipulating the functioning of the brain and body of a human subject, you know, as per the definition of nervous system. The effect may be much more subtle and non-perceptible than you think.
You're embarrassed for me because I don't believe in mind control by electromagnetic frequencies emitted through a television set?!? Wow, I gave you an out when I asked "what does it mean to you to manipulate the nervous system? Hopefully you don't think it means mind control." But you doubled down on stupid.
I get that electromagnetic waves can influence the nervous system, such as causing "eyelid ptosis" as claimed in the patent. But it certainly can't control my actions or emotions. 
Quote:
amp244 said: I wonder why someone would design a method for embedding faintly pulsating images that create electromagnetic frequencies into television programs if the object was to manipulate the nervous system?
Maybe to see if electromagnetic frequencies can impact the nervous system in any way? There is such a thing as fundamental research.
Quote:
amp244 said: Heres the link again for you to read: https://www.google.com.au/patents/US6506148 Read the whole thing and it will blow your mind. We shouldn't even be talking about this. I had posted it, and it was buried in banter. Now your perplexed ass comes in here and spouts off all types of misinformation, lies, and ignorance; so I had to bring it back.
Again, be specific about what "misinformation, lies, or ignoranace" I brought in. All you do is:
Quote:
amp244 said: As far as the other argument I stopped responding to your ignorance. I cited that stupid shit you asked for about American History.
No, you didn't. You asked me to google it, which I did before I even made my post. I found nothing, and neither did you apparently.
Quote:
amp244 said: You cited the Laffer curve, which was COMPLETELY IREELEVENT to the argument of economic prosperity.
Your argument, once again, was "When you tax nearly half of someone or something’s income, you are creating a huge disincentive toward production and prosperity." I used the Laffer curve to show that people remain productive even when they are being taxed at high rates. You're welcome to provide a counter argument, but the best you ever do is:
Quote:
amp244 said: You chopped up my argument, quoted rhetorical questions AND ANSWERED THEM, and completely clouded up any point anyone was trying to make.
Once again, please give specifics to prove your point. Quit
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] 2
#23696235 - 10/01/16 03:44 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Step one: open a new tab in your browser. Step two: Type in "www.google.com" Step Three: Type in "Poverty in the U.S. 1800's" Step Four: Click on THE VERY FIRST LINK. Step Five: Delete your account and check into the mental institution.
I didn't find anything in that article that showed "Poverty wasn’t a major problem in the U.S. like it is today until the mid 19th century". In fact, your article said "In 1878 the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor made the country's first effort to measure unemployment". So I don't know how you could prove your point. But when I searched for ""Poverty in the U.S. 1700's", the first link had an interesting century by century look at poverty showing that poverty was a major problem in the 1700s.
Quote:
amp244 said: This is why nobody likes debating with you. There is no constructive debate because you get hung up on such little stupid shit.
I actually agree that is "little stupid shit", but it's you that chose to focus on this point and ignore the more important points I brought up, such as:
- Why do you think government revenue goes down when the tax rate reaches a certain level? Is that when people become disincentivized to work? - Can you provide evidence to show production and prosperity are hurt as a result of taxation? - Since you've accused me of taking things out of context, can you back it up with evidence?
Quote:
amp244 said: And even when we are specific about your misinformation, and we give examples, like when you say the patent is for tubes only and I correct you; you still proceed to tell me that I haven't listed anything (you just didn't quote it).
Absolutely false - you just made that up. I didn't say "you weren't listening". If you can quote anything even close to that, then I'll stop arguing with you. But it appears you're being dishonest.
Quote:
amp244 said: I source information, you tell me that I need to cite it or I'm making things up.
Burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. That's a fundamental rule of logical discussion.
Quote:
amp244 said: ...you can never tax into prosperity. A centrally powerful federal government taxing the shit out of people’s produce is not only a threat to the economy, it’s a move toward despotism. You can never GROW an economy and lift up all classes of people through taxation.
No one claimed you can tax into prosperity. The claims were that: Raising taxes reduces deficits Taxes pay for roads, schools, Government... Taxes redistribute money to help create a middle class There's no evidence that lower taxes helps the economy Raising taxes raises revenue Taxes don't disincentive workers
Quote:
amp244 said: A system designed to give people a whole rack of shit for “free” is a system that is destined to fail, because it is a system of plunder that deters investment and production, and thus, deters the creation of wealth. If such weren’t the case, as people like falcon argue, we wouldn’t be sitting here having these debates about jobs leaving, and increasing numbers of poor without work.
Why then are countries with the highest median wealth the ones that provide the most for their people?
Quote:
amp244 said: My point is that before we had big government we had economic prosperity. People who say, ‘oh it was only good for the elite! It was so terrible for everyone else!’
Exactly.
Quote:
amp244 said: should note that the population grew in North America by over 600% in the 1800’s(3). The U.S. on its own saw a far more drastic explosion of population(4). According to the science of economics, the population grows along with the demand for labor in advanced economies with the division of labor. Immigrants were coming in, but the main contributor was an increase in birth rates(4). When people can afford it, they have children; when they can’t, they don’t. Before the institution of the welfare state, poor people raised less children, because they were incapable of financially supporting them. Children were a burden and made the lives of the poor unduly hard.
Do you really think there's a correlation between wealth and birth rates? The poorest countries in the world are the ones with the highest birth rates.
Quote:
amp244 said: My point is that we are sinking fast with all of our gov’t influence and welfare programs.
Empirical evidence shows the country started sinking after Reagan cut taxes on the rich. Our debt/GDP went way up, our income inequality went way up, our wages became stagnant. That's reality.
Quote:
amp244 said: Please respond to the entire post, or at the very least, the entire paragraph. Do not pull a Falcon and quote a single line as if there was no other context to be taken. The sentence was not posted by itself, it was included within a paragraph for a reason. I would appreciate if it was addressed as such.
This is the third time I'll ask you for an example of where you think I took your post out of context by not quoting everything. I look for the bullshit and focus on that. If I don't quote something, you can assume I agree with it. But I don't change the context of what I do quote (show an example if I'm wrong).
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: ballsalsa]
#23696240 - 10/01/16 03:48 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Very good post ballsalsa!
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse] 1
#23696900 - 10/01/16 11:18 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
skywalker444 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: Obviously taxes need to be raised on the wealthy considering our record deficits, debt, and lowest top tax rates in history.
clinton raised taxes, debt went up, Obama raised taxes, debt doubled, sorry Charlie, not buying it
This dude needs a lesson in economics.
I was addressing the assertion that "we can lower the debt by raising taxes" which I easily proved wrong
No, you didn't prove that wrong. That's a very simple and basic mathematical truth. What you showed is that Obama didn't lower the deficit, which is because he used stimulus (deficit) spending to help get us out of the Great Recession.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: hostileuniverse] 2
#23697514 - 10/01/16 03:24 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PeyoteZen said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: Falcon is ridiculous. In another thread he tried to tell me that Hillary Clinton's fully-documented and well-established concussion back in 2012 and her subsequent blood clots were just a conspiracy theory.

It's amazing how they can twist shit to fit their narrative
He just made up his mind that he was going to "debunk" me and then proceeded to lie his ass off and then claim victory.
Let's see what I said about that:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: Hillary's blood clots are not a conspiracy theory. It is documented fact, once again. And she was put on medication (blood thinners) for the blood clots in her brain.
I never claimed her concussion and blood clots didn't happen; those are well known facts. I said "that proves nothing about her current health"
You two are just as bad as Amp. "Waaaa, Fal is kicking our asses, let's tell some lies about him". Oh really, can you please back up your claims with evidence?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Great Scott] 2
#23697548 - 10/01/16 03:32 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: I brought up Hillary's personalized handicap van as proof that Hillary has physical health issues. And then I followed up by saying she has the van + an ambulance in her motorcade.
Falcon then said it's completely normal for these types of motorcades to have an ambulance and that therefore I had not provided any proof that Hillary has health issues, completely ignoring the part about the van.
Oh really? Let's see what I said about that:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: Show me all the pictures of Presidential motorcades with medical wheelchair access vans...you know.. since those are so commonly included in a standard (high ranking official's) motorcade. 
How about a video of an ambulance riding behind Trump's motorcade?
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: And then a couple days later Hillary crumpled and collapsed and had to be hoisted into the van by her arm pits. Which as we know, was captured on cellphone video by a bystander.
You've got to be a colossal idiot and/or a shill to not be able to concede by now that Hillary has serious health issues.
Yes, and it was pointed out to you that she had pneumonia. 
The intellectual dishonesty is unreal.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Great Scott] 1
#23697579 - 10/01/16 03:41 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PeyoteZen said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
PeyoteZen said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: ...Hillary fell down and bonked her head and got a concussion and was hospitalized for months. ...Hillary is on blood clot medication. ...Hillary hasn't had a press conference in almost a year.
Causes? Check Medications? Check Hillary laying low because of medical issues or because of her campaign strategy to avoid having to answer questions? Both
More conspiracy theory.
You called it a conspiracy theory. So just to reiterate...
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: Falcon is ridiculous. In another thread he tried to tell me that Hillary Clinton's fully-documented and well-established concussion back in 2012 and her subsequent blood clots were just a conspiracy theory.

As you can see above, my response was to your claim that "Hillary laying low because of medical issues or because of her campaign strategy to avoid having to answer questions?"
Answer: Neither - you're floating a conspiracy theory.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Webster10] 1
#23698292 - 10/01/16 08:16 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Webster10 said: Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that.
Oh ya? Well anyone with two ounces of common sense would know that's not true. Neener neener.
Did I win, or do you understand that your kindeegarten logic doesn't work?
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: When lawyers say stupid shit like that when trying to defend their argument in court, smarter lawyers object. And judges sustain.
Looks like you already beat me to it.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: amp244] 1
#23711962 - 10/06/16 01:25 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amp244 said: Capitalism didn't cause 2007 or 1929.
What caused it then? We had rising income inequality before those times, putting less of the available money into the hands of consumers. Banks operated without federal protection before the Great Depression, creating a climate of panic when times got tough. Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks...
Quote:
amp244 said: And if you like too big to fail than hell yea buddy, keep saving the market and watching this wealth inequality you decry grow and grow!
It's the liberals that are calling to end 'too big to fail'. The Government needs to break companies up when they get so large that their failure can hurt the entire economy. They also need to break up monopolies.
Quote:
amp244 said: The Federal Reserve, Progressive Income Tax, state administered education, these are Marxist ideas, not capitalist ones. They didn't exist in this country until the 20th century.
These all helped create a strong middle class.
Quote:
amp244 said: Under capitalism, the banks fail, and the taxpayer keeps their money, and the people who defaulted lose their homes.
You forgot to mention that when banks fail, innocent people with money in those banks also lose. And when a 'too big to fail' bank fails and causes other companies with money tied up in those banks to fail also, even more innocent people lose. That's capitalism.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: Crumist] 1
#23713223 - 10/06/16 01:23 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Crumist said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Please explain what caused the jimmy carter recession, you know, before Reagan and them evil republicans fucked everything up,
The cycles of boom times and crashes is a product of speculative capitalism...
Exactly. 
And Carter can actually be credited with passing the "Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977", after which time the boom/bust cycles were greatly stabilized (until banking deregulation came along):
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Official Hillary vs Trump Debate Thread. [Re: qman]
#23713237 - 10/06/16 01:27 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: their failures cleans out the bad practices, would it make you feel better when people lose their money under crony capitalism/socialism?
Their failures don't clean anything. The banking executives that caused the Great Recession made huge sums of money during the bubble, and they'd still be filthy rich whether their banks collapsed or not. It's the shareholders and the business partners of the banks that lose out.
Quote:
qman said: You're the one that wants to bailout these banks, how does that help breaking up 'too big to fail'?
No, I don't want to bail out any banks. I keep saying we need to end 'too big to fail'.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (10/06/16 02:57 PM)
|
|