LogFAQs > #894886591

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Which party is more evil, Democrats or Republicans?
Zeus 01/27/18 1:09:10 AM #32:	Yellow posted... Democrats know what Americans want, they pretend to fight for it, but they just want money more. Republicans have a vision and they fight for something, but it's terrible. Democrats are so weak they lose to the biggest joke of all time, a TV reality star with a red lightsaber. They deny the most popular candidates in favor of a candidate that previously broke fundraising records, and lost anyway. I'm not sure which characterization is more ridiculous. However, in general, they didn't "deny" Bernie anything. If he was actually the most popular candidate, he would have won. Instead the Democrats picked a less batshit insane candidate. In general, both parties push for the will of the American people to some extent and frequently betray their voterbases. In most cases, it's just saber-rattling for effect rather than actual ill intent. And both parties want stupid things. Yellow posted... That government shutdown was so spineless, they just "gave up". They're so bad at their jobs it's almost as if they're doing it on purpose. It's a weak, spineless party that stands for nothing. Which spineless shutdown? There were two of them. Either way, it's a stupid move. There shouldn't be shutdowns over either issue. TES_Nut posted... They have shown an unusual amount of odium towards people that haven't hurt anyone. What? TES_Nut posted... They claim to be the fiscally responsible party, but any decent economist will tell you that we need increased tax revenue, lower income inequality, and that trickle down economics doesn't work. So many problems with that statement. First off, we don't necessarily need "lower income inequality." Income inequality is by itself a pointless metric. After all, when everybody is poor, you have perfect income equality and yet it's the worst possible outcome. Likewise, tax revenue varies based on spend and, given that the bulk is entitlement spending, requiring massive revenue for that is a net negative. In general, societies inevitably revolt under massive taxation. If your "decent economists" can't realize that, go talk to any decent historian. Or any historian. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:894886591] in Which part... [t:76243934]...</cite> <quote><cite>Yellow posted...</cite> <quote>Democrats know what Americans want, they pretend to fight for it, but they just want money more. Republicans have a vision and they fight for something, but it's terrible. Democrats are so weak they lose to the biggest joke of all time, a TV reality star with a red lightsaber. They deny the most popular candidates in favor of a candidate that previously broke fundraising records, and lost anyway.</quote> I'm not sure which characterization is more ridiculous. However, in general, they didn't "deny" Bernie anything. If he was actually the most popular candidate, he would have won. Instead the Democrats picked a less batshit insane candidate. In general, both parties push for the will of the American people to some extent and frequently betray their voterbases. In most cases, it's just saber-rattling for effect rather than actual ill intent. And both parties want stupid things. <cite>Yellow posted...</cite> <quote>That government shutdown was so spineless, they just "gave up". They're so bad at their jobs it's almost as if they're doing it on purpose. It's a weak, spineless party that stands for nothing.</quote> Which spineless shutdown? There were two of them. Either way, it's a stupid move. There shouldn't be shutdowns over either issue. <cite>TES_Nut posted...</cite> <quote>They have shown an unusual amount of odium towards people that haven't hurt anyone.</quote> What? <cite>TES_Nut posted...</cite> <quote>They claim to be the fiscally responsible party, but any decent economist will tell you that we need increased tax revenue, lower income inequality, and that trickle down economics doesn't work.</quote> So many problems with that statement. First off, we don't necessarily need "lower income inequality." Income inequality is by itself a pointless metric. After all, when everybody is poor, you have perfect income equality and yet it's the worst possible outcome. Likewise, tax revenue varies based on spend and, given that the bulk is entitlement spending, requiring massive revenue for that is a net negative. In general, societies inevitably revolt under massive taxation. If your "decent economists" can't realize that, go talk to any decent historian. Or any historian. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1