Hey /b/ I'm from Seattle Washington, living in a bubble

lib cuck

>>724079552
>Seattle Washington
There's only one Seattle, faggot, you didn't need to specify.

Fuck Trump and fuck his forever-alone virgin fan club on here.

>>724079552
>apposed to policy that taxes the rich much more than the poor
Trump's tax plan removes federal income taxes for everyone that makes less than 20000 a year

>>724080885
That's not enough. Besides, more tax on the rich is what's necessary for a real decrease in desparity, rather than letting the already poor keep their cash

>>724081200
just show that poor people are better for the economy by spending more of their income in a more distributed way than the rich do and better economies generate more wealth.

>>724081200
Also the rich are being forced (through taxation) to keep their businesses and factories in the U.S.

>>724081478
Yes, it would generate more wealth. More wealth that the rich would take the vast majority of

>>724081919
By selling things to the poor people?

File: 1488332632077.jpg (61KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x800px

>>724079552
Liberalism is just an excuse to ignore the clear traditional and cultural differences between different ethnicities. I'd rather have nationalism and pride towards being Mexican than living in fear over stating something that most will view as "politically incorrect".

>>724081776
A difficult balance is required between keeping jobs in the U.S. And allowing businesses to move to where they want. However the larger issue as I see it isn't the money that rich people invest in their business, but the money that they keep to themselves to buy their 12th house and 3rd private jet

>>724079552
>profiling people of a different nationality/skin color
You are aware that niggers commit a disproportionate amount of crime, right?

>>724082278
They earn their things by selling things to other people. How is this wrong?

>>724082055
By selling things to the poor people and taking a ridiculously large cut of the profits

>>724082607
Those profits pay their workers at least the minimum wage.
Also, many rich people are philanthropists

>>724082514
It is wrong because they do not need all the money they earned, and others certainly do need it, such as children who go hungry each day, parents who can't find jobs (who could be found with screening), etc. There are plenty of people out there who both deserve and need money that don't have it

>>724082932
Do you need all of your money?
Surely you should donate your own excess money to charity then.

>>724082872
And many are not. Many are corrupt. And even if most of the profits go to the workers of a company, the CEO in the typical large company is still making millions upon millions of personal money that they spend on pointless things

>>724079552
>a
Don't really care, you probably don't either, though illegal deliberate pollution and destruction is bad.
regulations get in the way of industries = bad
>b
Christcuckery
>c
economics
>inb4 "Nordic model" or "Mixed Market democratic socialism"
Don't make me laugh.
>d
depends
>e
Depends (I'm sure you're referring to Muslims)
>f
>>724082398 hits the nail on the head

I hope you question your own political views from my crude post.

>>724083069
Everything in moderation. There needs to be a cap on how much personal money an individual can have. Even if that cap was large, 20 million for instance, it would still drastically reduce disparity.

People can even still get rich! Such a cap would just set reasonable restrictions. Would you be against this?

>>724083167
If by corrupt you mean lobbying for deregulation; Trump has already passed executive orders to decrease that. Also don't you buy "pointless" things? Like video games?

>>724083399
I wouldn't really be against it, but I'm guessing a lot of other conservatives wouldn't either.

>>724083399
Yes, because it's none of your fucking business how much money I have or what I do with it. You can't enforce charity, or legislate your own personal morality. Who the hell are you to decide what I do or do not "need"?

>>724083399
Yes, but the issue is that you have many Americans who would still feel that this is too low to justify any kind of super risky business move, and the economy would stagnate.
All the same, I sympathize anon, I really do, but frankly there's no solution to really be made here that doesn't go against the concept of "the American dream" and doesn't also muff the economy up a bit.

>>724083371
I realize there is merit to statistics about crime, IQ, education level, etc comparing people of different nationalities. However I attribute these differences to cultural and economic differences rather than intrinsic inferiority (not to imply you do). How then do you think we can put people of other nations/skin colors on better footing? Better education? Or is there no pheasable way?

>>724083452
Well that's good that Trump is doing that! I don't believe he's an entirely bad president. I don't buy pointless things that cost tens of millions of dollars

>>724079552
you are from an ideological shithole. The rise of conservatives is people tired of people fucking with their shit. We want smaller government, we don't not care about the environment, we just don't want the government looking over our shoulders at every turn. This is supposed to be the land of the free. Being against mass immigration isn't 'profiling immigrants' it's basic common sense, this generation forgets the principles and values that made this country great, probably because they have been so lacking as of late. I am not at all religious and I'll tell you right now, every time the gov't says it will tax big businesses, big businesses lobby out of the tax and small businesses end up paying it. The reason there are no jobs is because there are no new businesses being set up by anyone except giant corporations that can afford all the regulations.

Be big corporation, lobby for regulations, be only one who can abide by regulations, squish out competition, buy competition, have monopoly

see how it works? Most people get their information from some stupid pundit but do research understand what it takes to run a business and you'll see why the country is in the shitter and modern liberals are really, really stupid.

>>724083564
Then why hasn't something like this happened yet? Why are there still billionaire tycoons with 20 houses and so on? I'm not saying it's the fault of conservatives alone. The system keeping the rich richer is the problem

>>724080625
have fun with all the retarded women who will cuck you out of millions, I'll be chillin over here on the smart people side where I don't fuck hundreds of sluts and instead devote myself to one beautiful and intelligent sperm bank that I can trust to not give me some bacteria from another man's cock!

>>724084003
If they're immigrants we can't let them in the country/ we have to deport them. If they're criminals put them in prison for rehabilitation. If they're children educate them.

>>724083709
This isn't me deciding, and I wouldn't make this decision. It should be the poverse majority throughout the world that democratically vote for the rich to lose their money. When it comes to disparity I think the problems of the many come before the problems of one millionaire individual

>>724084457
These billionaires are just really really smart, they shouldn't be taxed for being smarter than other people. That or they have friends in high places...which is another reason to shrink government. A lot of these big business guys get leeway if they have friends in the whatever department

>>724084692
You do realize that in the eyes of the rest of the world, you are amongst the richest group to exist, right? What happens when the masses of the poor decide that having the amount of money that you have is unacceptable, and your wealth (no matter how little you have relative to the extremely wealthy) is taken and redistributed?

Are you alright with living with significantly less?

>>724084740
I'm not saying they should get taxed only because they were able to make so much money. They deserve a wealthy lifestyle. The reason I think they should be taxed is because there is a more diar need for their money elsewhere such as with starving children (it's a legitimate example). Don't take away their lavish lifestyle, just take away their extreme excess

>>724085076
Yes I would be. You can call me a liar or you can believe that someone would value the survival of strangers in severe poverty over a little more comfort

>>724084516
I understand the criminals and the children. But why deport immigrants? I honestly want to know your reason and compare it openly to my beliefs

>>724083399

Nah.

>>724085875
I meant illegal immigrants/people that haven't been properly vetted

>>724085510
That's fine. You should give most of your income away then. However, many of us do not wish to live like a 3rd worlder. That's generally why so many people are opposed to massive increases in taxes. Sure, tax the rich. But what if they increase your taxes too?

Personally, I like my lifestyle. I'd prefer to increase everyone to at least my level. Hopefully with science and technology we will do just that. We are getting closer everyday, and it is awesome.

>>724086089
I completely agree with you
I think that with proper vetting, people from any country, culture, ethnicity, religion and skin color can become american

>>724086265
We are getting closer, and with each passing year, the average quality of living becomes higher. This is a positive thing people tend to overlook, I'm glad you didn't. At the same time I think that gross desparity reduces this increase each year, and in some places in the world can cause it to stay the same or move backward. I admit I don't know which economical plan works best to reduce desparity, but I think something needs to be done to reduce desparity if we are to make the very poor less poor. Reducing desparity so that the very poor becomepagan poor (with exception of people who give no effort) should be one of the largest goals in our country, don't you think?

>>724087047
*Become less
Not becomepagan

>>724081200
>That's not enough.
Jesus what the fuck man.

>>724086265
Also I actually do plan on giving away unnecessary income lol Im just in college right now so I don't have income to give away

>>724087290
It isn't!

File: 1484622016409.jpg (40KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1024x672px

>>724083399
Wow you seem like an expert on the economy and how the world should work d:^) why aren't you president???

Guys think of the quality that public places, utilities, roads, bridges and transportation could be if the rich were taxed more. Isn't road and bridge quality something that always seems to be a problem in the united States?

I live there as well and I find it confusing too, but the fact is, most of them are uneducated and are probably taking all of their info from the news.

>>724087767
Can you give me a legitimate argument? If you actually debate with me I will try my best to listen. I'm not trying to be a dick I started this thread because I wanted general thoughts on these matters, because I don't trust my own beliefs and I don't trust the media

>>724087873
How do you think this can change then? What would be necessary to allow people to think for themselves?

>>724088151
Well, I think they should research things for themselves instead of only listening to the mainstream media. For example, I used to despise Trump, but now I only dislike him. I did my best to find things myself instead of only looking towards what I see on tv.

File: mfj84mnhvkdy.png (78KB, 1094x718px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1094x718px

>>724087424
Literally zero taxation is not enough? You do realize if people are given free shit said people won't work and the economy won't grow at all. The worst part, however, is that the free money would encourage people to have more children than they could afford leading to fucking faggot manchildren like you.

>>724088024
Your only argument is steal other people's money becuz of my feels and the children

>>724079552
How is the cost of living in Seattle?
Plan to move there after Uni.

>>724087047
Read what I said before. I wasn't just talking about one nation. I was talking about the entire planet. The difference between an average middle class or lower class American and say, a Nepalese villager is ridiculous. The difference is comparable to that between yourself and Bill Gates.

I have no idea what to do. I don't think it matters what you or I think. Things will continue to get better because we collectively work to make it better. I'd much rather be a peasant today than a thousand years ago, and I'd much rather be a peasant a thousand years from now than a rich man today. Assuming that things continue as they are.

And not to be rude, but if you honestly think that things are not objectively better for the poor today than it has been in the past, you seriously need to read more and a discussion between us is entirely pointless.

>>724088511
Not OP, but "the children" starving seems like a legitimate problem don't you think?

>>724087354
You still live on more money than most people on the planet. Most people can only dream of the sort of life you live.

>>724088511
That's one way to put it. I see my only argument as let the poor democratically vote for a tax reform that reduces desparity by taking from the very rich (i.e. I believe in humanity's ability to care for those in desperate need)

>>724088624
I'm in Seattle in Uni so don't know lol
But minimum wage here is $15

>>724088989
Holy shit that's a living wage where I'm from

>>724088402
I didn't mean zero taxation on the poor is not enough. In fact, maybe the poor should be taxed to an extent. What I meant was that it's more important for the rich to be taxed than the poor because they have so much more money

>>724088631
statistical averages do nothing for those suffering today and no more absolves you of responsibility than praying to an idol

>>724079552
Ok I'll take the bait.
a) How about showing proof of man made climate change? The NOAA has lied about things. The ice caps are not melting, the Earth hasn't gotten hotter since 1998 and the watter levels aren't rising. And what would be the solution to climate change if it were real? We all go back to the dark ages? And even if the whole western world went back to the dark ages, do you think China would give a shit? They would just carry on using coal and polluting. A better solution would be to let the free market decide. More efficient and renewable forms of energy will be used as time goes on. And remember that humans are adaptable. Even if the water levels rise in 50 years time, so what? Move inland.
b) The argument for abortionn is the same as the argument for slavery. Is it a person? If it's a person, I must treat it like a person. If it's not a person, I can do what I want with it. A baby isn't a kidney. It isn't a part of your body, it is a seperate life with its own brain waves and beating heart and blood. You don't get to choose to kill a baby just for the sake of your own convenience.
c) Taxing the rich doesn't work because they don't want you to take their money. They will always find a loophole in the system and end up getting saving as much money as possible. Also just because someone is rich, doesn't mean they are evil. Rich people are rich because they work hard and are smart and are good with money. Why would you want to punish people for warking hard and making good decisions, and then reward people who are lazy and don't contribute to society? Socialism simply doesn't work where there is scarcity. If food and housing and health care were free, socialism would work. These things are not free and socialism doesn't work. have you seen what a shithole Russia is?
d) Obviously you can't just let any cunt into your country as they may end up causing problems and being a burdon to society.

>>724089117
Guarantee they have a higher cost of living to balance it back out though. Don't get too excited.

>>724089117
Minimum wage here is not proportionate to minimum living lol. It's fifteen because of some weird plan the governor is doing. It's basically an exploit of the state that seattlites can use

>>724084508
>smart people side
If I listen REALLY closely, I can hear the vacuum that Dubya left by never taking office in his mind.

>>724089515
e) It isn't about religion, it's about extemism and anti western ideas. If someone believes it's okay to beat woman into submission, rape children and kill anyone who has a different ideology from you, why would you want that person in your country?
f) And where do you see this happening? Nowhere? Oh, okay.

OP here.
Several posters have mentioned that they've been talking about the global scale and not just the us scale. I'm trying to keep up.
I realize I'm living so much better off than people in third world countries and I view myself as a global citizen. At some point I do think that people of the U.S. middle class like myself will be placed in the position of the U.S. 1% Ive been saying should be taxed more. Again what I think here is everything in moderation. The world isn't ready for the middle class of richer countries to go away yet, just the very very ridiculously rich. When the time comes I think that yes, the middle class should be reduced if third world countries still exist. But before that we need to figure out how to even properly send money to the starving in these third world countries

>>724081200
If someone is poor their whole life, it is because they are bad with money.

>>724082398
this

>>724082607
do you even know how business works?

Jesus christ this entire thread is a train wreck.

File: 1488340508842.jpg (27KB, 600x425px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x425px

>>724088926
"Democratically" deciding to take other people's property.

>>724082932
Anyone in USA could become rich. And remember that the people who own businesses give jobs to the rest. Why is that bad?

>>724083167
You don't get to decide what other people do with their money.

>>724090555
all business is thinking ahead for other people. it used to be thinking ahead by just a few hours with simple products, now that's increased dramatically, putting thousands of man hours into each product sold.

Conservatism is the final refuge of a white, middle class America that is under economic siege. As the post-World War II manufacturing sugar high finally wore off in the late 80's and early 90's, the bread and butter of the white collar worker began evaporating. Some people call it globalization, others blame China specifically. The truth is that American became noncompetitive in its largest area of revenue generation and so the middle class started to die. A few wars, a few economic bubbles, they postponed the inevitable but now the chickens have come home to roost.

Generally in this situation democracies wilt, autocracy takes root, and the second half of a declining empire's life begins. Rome was a rich, relatively free democracy for only about half of its existence. Eventually it became a democracy in name only and degenerated into autocracy.

We, the lucky few alive and conscious at this moment in time, have the honor and privilige to watch our nation move from its summer to its autumn phase. This isn't a bad thing or a good thing. It's just the life cycle of an empire playing out like all other empires...

So to answer your question - conservatism doesn't make sense. It doesn't have to. All it has to do is take the core demographic whom society is centered around and give them comfort as they experience the first wracking coughs of an ultimately fatal disease.

>>724089515
OP here
A) you make good points, I don't know exactly the legitamacy of climate change but I trust my biology professor
B) this issue is very controversial, some people believe a fetus is conscious and others do not. But it isn't a baby it's a fetus or embryo in development. I believe there is a threshold cutoff date when a fetus can feel pain.
C)even if taxing the rich has hardly worked in the past that doesn't mean it isn't a serious problem. There simply hasn't been a solution yet
D)I agree that immigration without vetting isnt good. But legal immigration with proper vetting should be fine, with the immigrant being of any nation, religion, nationality and skin color

>>724090416
That's not true for people in third world countries

>>724090354
Why? What has the 1% done wrong? And what gives you moral authority? Why is it that you get to decide who to punish just for the crime of having money?

File: SjXpfS.jpg (123KB, 813x639px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 813x639px

>>724090852
Fascism for America, now.

>>724090682
That isn't bad. It's good. What's bad is when the CEO of a conglomorite has billions of dollars of personal money to spend on private jets and mansions

>>724079552

It's because of anti-intellectualism, a HUGE inferiority complex uneducated middle americans have towards educated "city" folk.

File: trump.png (474KB, 525x525px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 525x525px

>>724079552

>>724090769
No but the vast majority of poverse people's should get to decide fairly in a democratic system

>>724091106
>believing in the sovereignty and culture of your nation is "fascist
>being politically correct isn't
This better be bait

>>724091251

What's worse is when he's made secretary of state.

>>724091106
Not precisely fascism. Nationalism. Fascism is the extreme end of nationalism. Everything going on right now is teatime compared to what will come later. It happens in stages. 50 years ago Trump and his ilk would have been unthinkable. I'm sure the politicians 50 years from now will be far more deserving of the title 'fascist' than those of today.

I honestly don't care who should be allowed to do what. It's a matter of opinion. However, here are some verifiable facts from econ 101:

Sweden is widely considered the most economically egalitarian country in the world. Their tax rates are almost completely flat. The US has an extremely progressive tax rate by comparison. However, Sweden taxes everyone MORE than even the richest of us in the US, and spends it on social programs. As a result, they have extremely low economic disparity.

If you want to fight poverty, increase taxes.

>>724091274
>anti-intellectualism
You smug cunt

>>724090921
a) Why? Don't trust your prof, trust the facts and see the truth for yourself. Just because someone has a qualification, doesn't mean they aren't full of shit, or blindly following someone else who is blindly following someone else etc
b) If it isn't a life it is still a potential life. Why do you get to decide to kill it?
c) We should help the poor any way we can but why must we punish the rich for making good decisions and reward those who make bad decisions? You don't seem to be a Christion so why not embrace survival of the fittest?
d) of course I agree with you and so does almost everyone. So what's the problem?

File: 1483680008047.jpg (150KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x1280px

The answer is neither Republican nor democrat.

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=FEyS26N8qoI

>>724091022
Ok you are right there. But it is true in the west

>>724091251
Why? He/she earned it

>>724079552
I'm fairly conservative and I think the main dividing point between conservatives and the left is essentially their respective views of the rIles of government. I view the government as mostly inefficient but required for certain tasks.
A) I am very much in favor of protecting the environment however there are 2 basic issues; incompetent government programs and the partisan nature of legislation. One side unabashedly claims any expansion of, for example, a pipeline to make it newer, safer, and leak less overall will be LITERALLY DUMPING CRUDE OIL ON BABY SEALS, while the other seems to push the wrong issues. Really what I support is expanding nuclear power as much as possible but people are squeamish/uniformed.
B) pro life, while this isn't a political issue for me, many of my contemporaries view that life begins at conception, and a fetus is an individual entity. I'm a realist, I say keep planned parenthood running full steam and make contraceptives as accessible/cheap as possible.
C) trickle down vs tax the rich. My view is this; the focus of the "tax the rich and give to the poor" is incredibly short sighted. We shouldn't be worrying about how rich some people are. Simply confiscating money from people above a certain thresold does not magically make poor people better off. Having rich people in society is a good thing. We need to figure out how to break the cycle of poverty which I believe the solution is to facilitate a) kids in poor areas graduating high schools and b) pursing ANY job but especially a job in skilled trades.
D) I have absolutely no problems with immigrants. The imperative term in that issue is ILLEGAL immigrants. An uncontrolled influx of people of unidentified needs and abilities is a recipe for disaster
F) I don't give a shit what religion anyone else is as long as practicing that religion interferes with another person's rights.
G) see above.

My general theory in life is don't I won't bother you

>>724091586
"We need mo cash fo Dem afta school programs n shirt"

>>724091058
I'm not trying to say the rich are doing anything wrong. It's just that the very rich do not need all of their money to survive, and many others need more money to survive. These are my beliefs, I have no moral authority. Who I believe should be given moral authority are the global masses, which are the poverse. Naturally they would want to tax the rich much more

>>724079552
i wanna fuck you up. where u wanna meet?

>>724091586
Sweden and U.S. are apples and oranges. With its larger population base and radically different culture and ethics, the U.S could not possibly scale services up like Sweden has. As bureaucracies scale up, their efficacy doesn't keep pace with their size. Loosely put, the square cube law goes into effect. You get a squared increase in services while the organizational size increases cubically.

>>724079552
a) I am a conservative who is concerned about the environment but I admit there are many who are misguided or willfully ignorant
b) I am prochoice to an extent. Of course if there is risk to the mother or known birth defects, or a product of rape I think a woman should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. In other instances, though I wouldn't encourage it, I think she should have the right to choose up to a certain point bin the pregnancy. I have no problem when it is an undifferentiated blob of cells, but think it would be very reckless to carry the pregnancy until the last trimester and then decide to abort it
c) I agree the trickle down idea is complete rubbish, but pure capitalism (not crony) is the best from what I've seen. I admittedly need to research more into this, but I think communism and, for nonhomogenous societies, socialism is far worse
d) too vague; what do you mean by profiling immigrants?
e)above is where conservatives are off the mark. Probably from d) down are where liberals go absolutely fucking retarded. It's wrong to profile someone for their religious beliefs? What if there beliefs are unadulterated batshit stupid, crazy and evil. I'll go ahead and call out the elephant in the room: Islam is not compatible with western culture and values. Period. If you would stop being delusional and see, on average, it and uts adherents are the most cancerous plague on the planet in terms cultural progress. I would start listing off the countless statistics on how barbarous it is but I'm sure you have already heard most of them and would just stick your head in the sand in a desperate attempt to salvage utopian vision of the world.
f) I'm going to throw the immigrant part of (e) into here as well.

>>724091740
Then my argument still stands. Until people in those countries are given the opportunity to escape hunger, those richer than them ought to be taxed more

File: 8TRU1Rn.jpg (79KB, 541x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 541x960px

>>724092048
Don't try to fuck with OP, he's been bulking with the rest of his food stamps before Trump takes them

>>724087354
I make 200usd a month in my country, and i can barely get by. How about you start sending me an extra 200 a month to me to make my life better?

>>724092312
I'll start with Mexicans.If they didn't breed like rabbits, would learn English, and continue to work hard, I don't think many people would have a problem with them. But It's pretty fucking frustrating when a lot of my friends, that are in their late 20s to early 30s, aren't buying houses or starting families because it's too expensive. Meanwhile every single time I go to wal mart or the grocery store I end up behind some Mexican who can't speak any English, with her 10 fucking kids buying a cart full of groceries with food stamps. It happens all the fucking time in my personal experience, and from the statistics I see everywhere. I realize the aforementioned is not all their fault, but whites by far contribute the most and are among the least likely to accept government gib me dats. Our people are being displaced so that brown people can continue their archaic breeding habits.

Not to mention the effect this is having on our planet. If you are truly concerned about the environment, you would NOT be encouraging more people, who are statically likely to shit out much higher number of children, to come here.

>>724092393
What is there in life when there is reward for no risk, no endeavor, no glass ceiling to break? If the sky rained cheeseburgers humanity would have never created vast empires, made scientific and technological discoveries, etc. I'm not saying your idea won't work, I'm just saying that your idea is not a good idea.

>>724092503
Shush Venezuela, first worlders are talking.

>>724092581
One more thing. I love how you "progressives" always try to immediately control the narrative - especially when it comes to immigration. You act as if "diversity" is some sort of divine gift endowed upon white people, and that we must accept massive influxes of third world migrants or we're some kind of bigot or racist. Let's get one thing straight: we don't need these people and we don't owe them a god damn thing (except for native Americans, if I had the power I would carve up most of America and just give it to them because they actually deserve that land)

>>724079552
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs

>>724092870
Thus, we understand my ops plan of income ceilings will never work

>>724081200
And say if we tax the rich more what exactly is stopping them from leaving the country or internationalizing their businesses?

>>724091586
Sweden (up until recently) has been a very homogeneous society. As this becomes less the case you can see their social welfare programs start to buckle.

>>724091832
OP here
A) despite being liberal I 100% agree with you that some environmental issues should be addressed and others don't need to be, or at least don't need government funding. I also completely agree with nuclear energy, it's sad that the u.s. Was scared out of making more nuclear plants, it's much more eco friendly and from what I've discovered the risks are not as high as many people think.
B) it's a controversial issue but I believe a compromise should be met rather than outright prolife or prochoice.
C)the threshold of 20 million was really just an example. I also think it is a much more complex cycle that keeps the poor poor but I believe that taxing the rich more in combination with other economic policies I probably wouldn't understand would likely be better than how much we tax the rich currently
D), F) good. Legal immigrants should honestly be fine. Illegal immigration is a more complex issue especially with the Mexico us boder. I can't say if I know the answer to that but legal immigration from any place should be fine

File: 1484179028193.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>724091274
>anti intellectualism
>implying it's mutually exclusive to rural working class Americans
>poster is probably a humanities or social sciences major

>>724093305
I don't know. I don't know what way we could find to tax the rich more. My point isn't so much how it should be done, but rather that this is something that would happen if the vast majority of humanity has their fair say

>>724091340
Ok, so you dont believe in property rights, got it. Because you have fewer assets than someone else, you feel as though you have rights to appropriate those assets.

>>724089515
you're fucking retarded if you think man doesn't affect climate, have you never been to LA and seen how the air is fucking gray and hazy 24/7 because of all the cars? that shit wasn't there 100 years ago.

but oh boohoo, some coal mining company doesn't want to suffer the terrible inconvenience of not dumping their waste into rivers, so let's just let the local kids and animals get poisoned instead because environmentalism is a lie!

I hope you get cancer from pollution, jackass.

>>724091251
And the families of the workers who build those jets and mansions should just be shit out of luck, right?

What do you think would actually happen if you artificially limited the amount of wealth someone could accrue? Do you honestly believe every one would adopt a minimalist lifestyle?

>>724094008
Yes that is exactly what I believe but on a larger scale than "a man without a house should get to take half of some other guys house". I'm saying that there should be a system where the man with 20 billion dollars to spend on private jets should distribute his wealth to the hundreds of thousands of starving children

>>724094008
Continueing from my first comment on your post: And it shouldnt only be out of philanthropy that a billionaire feeds these children, but should be required by law

>>724094465
Not him, and I agree to a large extent, but to what point? Where is the limit? Or do you not give a shit about the planet or wildlife?

>>724093787
Anon you can't tell me that and expect a reasonable argument and for future reference you should refrain from conceding your point so easily when arguing irl.

Nonetheless I'll continue the dialogue for your sake. what you are saying is shortsighted. I gave you an obstacle in your solution but you still agree with yourself that taxing the rich is the only solution. What would be the "right" way of taxing the rich well I guess you could federally enfore that certain income brackets have to stay in the country and never leave or internationalize their assets or else face force but that would be pretty tyrannical and of course the public always fights back.

On a different note I don't understand your antipathy for trickle-down. Explain to me how economics could possibly work if that concept doesn't work. I mean employees do get paid don't they and there is such a thing as investing.

>>724094612
So they can grow up and shit out 10 more children themselves that they can't take care of... good idea pal

>>724094465
What is the threshold of wealth above which confiscation is ok and who gets to determine? Would you say that a majority of the population should get to decide?

Follow up question, what is your net worth is USD or euro and what nationality are you?

>>724094612
Right, so you plan on sending a man with a gun to that person's house to steal their assets because it will make you feel good. Im not arguing against helping the poor, my argument is that the basis of our society is upon property rights, as in, if I own some thing it is mine to do with as I please

>>724093653
how do you map out the anti intellectualism?

>>724079552
>Anon asks legitimate question and was respectful of all political views despite admitting he lives in political bubble
>Asks to keep it classy
>no one even attempts to keep it classy

Hopefully this makes you realize why you shouldn't ask people questions like these on 4chan, considering everyone here are a bunch of political edgelords.

>>724094754
First of all, my point stays that in an ideal system, the rich would be taxed more and their money would be given to those in need and deserving(I.e. the hungry children).

But I'll bite. How might we tax the rich and keep them from leaving the country? First of all I can't provide any economic argument because I'm not an econ major, but I would assume certain things would be necessary before it could happen. An ideological change in the U.S. would be required which based on today's ideological climate could take a very long time. Secondly, I look at this issue globally as well. If the global rich were to be taxed by the global poor, a global democratic system would be required, which isn't in our lifetimes.

I dislike trickle down because it's just that--trickling. The rich could certainly give more money but without bearing any real burden but alas, the average CEO makes oh so much more than his employees

>>724095220
I feel like what we have here on /b/ is still relatively classier than what this same thread would result in on /pol/

>>724094755
No argument there. That problem can be fixed with enforcing birth limits

>>724090852
That was a good read; youre an eloquent writer.

>>724095163
>obfuscationism
>post modernism
>critical theory

>>724095725
Limits on wealth, posessions, children...are you going to ration my meals next, comrade?

>>724094842
Yes the majority should get to decide.

I'm Caucasian. I have no net worth because I'm in college but I come from a wealthy family, my dad makes 6 figures

>>724079552
Fuck you op

You pick and choose who you battle, pussy.

>>724095018
Well if that's the bases of our society then the bases of our society is flawed. It should be based on sustaining a minimum of living quality for those that deserve that minimum.

For those that insist we take in the third world masses for the sake of diversity, please consider this

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

and the impact your "progressive" ideologies are having on the planet. You faggots are just as bad or worse than the greedy republican business men and working class conservatives you hate.

>>724093378
This is a point which I have considered, but I haven't seen much evidence of high-tax socialist countries "buckling." Few countries are less homogenous than the US anyway, so it's hard to compare.

>>724092118
This however, is dumb. The "square cube law" of bureaucracy hasn't completely stopped China from running their government, and it hasn't stopped larger countries like Japan and Germany from having far more equality than the US.

>>724095220
OP here
I mostly knew that when making this thread. But the people on /b/ are still better than practically any other source. The media is lies. Reddit is too leftist. At least on /b/ you get people of different backgrounds who discuss honestly and openly

>>724095926
OK I'll assume you are from a western country and, being in college I would guess you only work a part time job at minimum wage (not trying to be insulting, I worked minimum wage through college as well). With a net income of ~$6000 usd you are within the top 23% richest people in the world.

And since you don't respect property rights, the 77% beneath you has the ability, actually, the RIGHT to allocate your funds as they please. Do you see the flaw to this logic? You muse respect property rights because if you don't you open the door to completely subjective arbitration of who gets what, and ultimately the biggest baddest kid on the block winds up with everything because there is no structure to protect anyone

>>724096064
I will assume you are posting either from a smartphone or computer. There are currently 795 million people starving to death in the world today. Why should you get to keep your computer or phone?

If I were to steal your property in the name of their suffering would you support that?

>>724095878
Even your homeboy Dawkins has called them out; google his review of intellectual impostors if you aren't familiar.

>>724096197
That video makes a very effective argument. There is no way that immigration is going to solve issues of poverty. Still, nationalism is a bad reason to keep people out. As the video points out, immigrants are often the best and brightest where they come from.

>>724087354
Screen shot this and look at it in 5 years time.

>>724097084
>nationalism is a bad reason to keep people out
Explain. And then explain why we should let them in in the first place. They may be the best and brightest from where they come from, but if we strictly wanted that we would be only be taking in white and Asian immigrants.

>>724097251
I will

I come from a very liberal background, but I try to respect arguments based on their merit.

>>724094465
This is idiotic. Redistribution may be well intended, but there is no way for it ever to be practical.

>>724096927
>>724096713
I don't know that much about property rights, I'm not trying to pretend that I do. You guys are probably right and property rights are needed to sustain an infrastructure. Perhaps what I mean to say is that I want a system that has a threshold level of income that is decided by a democratic vote. Wealth of property that people gained over this threshold would be redistributed

>>724095611
Anon I say this because it looks dumb and is too chatty when arguing but never say things like "I can't provide any economic argument because I'm not an econ major" that right makes your status in the debate. If you don't know what you're talking about why would you be debating in the first place afterall.

Anyways
>An Idealogical change
And just how do you control people's personality like that? Establish a populist religion? Expand the Media? Make propaganda? Have the schools lace their teachings with dogma? A person would really have a problem with robbing someone of their agency like that, like grooming a child for sex but for the sake of the argument we can be amoral about it. And Sure you could get them to act outwardly like however you want but you'd never be able to control who they really are when no one's looking.

>Global democratic system
So you are in favor of a global government. Well ultimately you will have a circle of beaurocrats handling the system and then over that you have anyone promising them money for favors, banks businesses, media, etc. What exactly stops such a system from becoming corrupt is it the people? How could the people ever rise up if their always feed information from the media and schools that urge to always be agreeable with this global ideology?

>Trickle down
And your replacement for trickle down would be to tax them more? Is that correct? What would stop the CEO from simply retiring earlier or not maximizing productivity simply because if he makes more he'll be taxed more. And then theres also the consideration that if you tax the CEO/Company he will have to make a decision to either pay his employees less or fire some people. Would that be worth the cause?

>>724097501
We just haven't found a way to do it properly yet. I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm saying it needs to be done if equality in opportunity is to be more real than it is today

>>724097333
If people want to work, get paid, pay taxes, and receive government services, we should let them. Capitalism means letting people go where they can afford to go and work for whomever will hire them, regardless of their passport.

Also, it's far more work to keep people out. For years conservatives have represented small government and free trade. That's the opposite of authoritarianism and arbitrary restrictions on who can come and go.

File: 1488385756652.webm (2MB, 480x272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x272px

>>724097828
Keep dreaming

Im not reading all this shit. http://lets.rabb.it/886j/IMnnBJ2fbB

>>724097828
Redistribution will NEVER be practical. The best way to work for equality is to address societal issues, one step at time.

>>724098144
Why

>>724097861
>capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Hmm... I must have missed where it said we are obligated to take in anyone and everyone.

It's not more work to keep people out. Natural and physical barriers work just as good now (or better) as they ever have.

So, I ask again, why do we need to let unskilled third-world migrants (who will undoubtedly continue to push us past our carrying capacity on this planet) into our country just so your little giney can tickle about all of the diversity?

I will concede free trade, as it has been set up, is a terrible idea.

>>724097715
Property rights is the very basic principle of "what legally comes under my ownership I am entitled to keep and do as I please with, so long as it doesnt infringe the rights of others."

If I buy a car, I can drive it home and keep it in my garage.

If I have $10, I can donate it to a homeless guy or buy a gallon of milk and loaf of bread for my family.

When you begin the process of letting "the majority" decide "an appropriate threshold of income" you are stripping property rights away from people.

On what planet is redistribution fair? Who told you that you get to decide how the universe works, who gets what and why? This is the real world, there is no equality of outcome and there never will be. We can only strive for equality of opportunity. My goal is not to take money from the rich, its to get the poor out of poverty by things like stimulating business in low-income areas so people can get jobs there and facilitating education for impoverished kids. I don't give a shit how rich some Joe shmo is, we've learned by example that simply pumping money into low income areas doesn't fix the problem

Kek op has tucked his tail between his legs and abandoned thread

>>724098456
It doesn't cost us anything to let them in. If they earn their keep, they can stay. Capitalism.

>>724098456
>not more work to keep people out
>BUILD THE WALL

>>724098813
>it doesn't cost us anything to let them in
Liar! Not only do immigrants on average receive far more welfare than the average American citizen using it, you refuse to acknowledge their absurd birth rates and the effect it is having on the environment.

I'm done here, you're an idiot.

>>724097744
You don't need to tell me how to debate, I'm just trying to be as honest and open as possible. I know I said debate thread but I'm too honest to debate in that way. If I don't know something I'll say so.

>Ideological change
I'm not recommending a rehash of the fiction 1984, I believe such a change would occur through open discussion and debate like we're having right now. I think of it this way: the human race has gained more humanity the further it's progressed (at least in progressive societies). For the most part the poor are still thought of in a much better light today than 200 years ago. So perhaps in 100 years people would have the balls to realize the poor people across the globe are just as important as poor people in the us and deserve money to boost their economy coming from the wealthiest of the wealthy. Which leads me into

>Global democratic system
I'm not claiming I know how a global democratic system would work in the future, how can you? All I believe is that a democratic system of some kind would be necessary to reduce global desperity.

>Trickle down
I also do not pretend to know what kind of laws would need to be set in place in order to make the wealthy CEO from finding a loophole. Perhaps require a maximum disparity in income between the CEO and the average employee. And when I say tax the rich I mean there individual assets, not their company's. That way, taxation would work in conjunction with trickle down(trickle down by itself isn't bad but rather trickle down without the larger taxes I speak of).

>>724099075
I admit, I had not considered the welfare thing. However, the environmental effects of absurd immigrant birthrates are, I think, safe grounds to claim that we're all idiots here. Good night.

>>724098859
Yes, a wall coupled with boarder security would be far less work than taking in and taking care of Latin America's poor.

>>724098810
Nope still here man

>>724098603
At a certain threshold redistribution IS fair! Ideally billionaire shouldn't exist, and yes it is an ideal! It isn't realistic to how the real world is, but setting a threshold at say even a billion dollars would still do wonders for disperity, so long as that money was used in smart ways by the government. And I realize governments are not perfect systems but redistribution is better AND FAIR in the case of billionairea that spend their money on such pointless things in comparison to food for a starving person!

>>724099836
you are the exact portrait of what is wrong with the world
of why the world reached the fucked up state we are into now

>>724100144
Hm I wonder why the majority of colleges are liberal then. Oh and why on average people of greater education tend to be liberal. Because liberalism is morally correct. "Do to others as you would have them do to you"

>>724099836
Im assuming you are from a western country and own at least a smartphone or computer to post from YOU are likely in the top 30% of the wealthiest people on the planet.

By your logic, men should be able to come to your house, consfiscate your smartphone or laptop, and if we believe in a functioning system (which is a real stretch to say that welfare systems or government relief systems are efficient), use that asset to feed a starving kid.

Guess what, when you let other people decide what to do with stuff they dont own, it goes both ways.

And guess what else, when you stop respecting property rights, the most powerful people (either the rich or the government, or both) are the first ones to abuse that. Look at life in the Soviet Union for a real world example of exactly that.

>>724100357
The social sciences and humanities are more liberal, yes. Though I'm not sure that's helping your case. The business/ finance and STEM departments ate far more split, the latter almost being apolitical. I feel this has been addressed numerous times in this thread and you're just being a faggot or willfully ignorant.

>>724100357
>"Do to others as you would have them do to you"
you mean taking their possessions away by force and giving them to people the way see you fit ?

>>724100357
"Do to others as you would have them do to you" is the exact argument AGAINST forced redistribution of assets! Would you like someone to steal your things because they don't have it and they want it? Then why would you do that to someone else.

Also a majority of colleges are liberal because they are an idealistic bubble where people can escape real cause and effect. I could've skipped class twice a week to go out drinking and I still would be able to eat and have a roof over my head when I was in school. If I did that now I would lose my job. Its easy to believe in an idealistic world when you aren't living with real world cause and effect

>>724100357
>failing to realize that the colleges and liberals are the main source of where all the world problems originate
its funny that you keep repeating your bullshit thinking it helps your case when it does the exact opposite

>>724100467
Creating an ideal system is a treacherous path due to human nature, the Soviet Union is an example of such an ideal failing. I see merit to both the capitalist and the communist system. I believe that a middle ground can be found that works more efficiently than either does alone. I also believe that without humanity striving toward an ideal where everyone has food to eat, there is no humanity. If we are indeed incapable of compassion as a collective then we prove our savagery, instinctual nature, lack of soul and our existence as an unconscious biological machine.

>>724079552
Taxing the rich more is interesting, mainly because of the possibility that it would leave people jobless. Imagine the rich is more heavily taxed and because of this buy say less Yachts. People who build Yachts than loose their job and the rich really isn't worse for ware. I'm not saying we should raise the taxes but raising too high could prove problematic

>>724081200
>>724081478
>>724081776
ausfag here, we pretty much consider rich people to be cunts and we abuse them publicly on the streets when we see them, or at least the people in my city do.

I mean seriously, name ONE rich person who DIDNT get to where they were WITHOUT being a cunt. Literally the only guy that comes close is Dick Smith but he's pretty irrelevant so w/e.

>>724101004
Bill Gates

>>724100757
It is not the exact argument against redistribution of assets, it is completely for it and understand why.

>"Would you like someone to steal your things because they don't have it and they want it"

You are putting words in my mouth

I would let someone in need of my things take my things because I would want them to do the same for me if I was in their position. If I was poor I would want someone to give me recources. And so by the logic "do to others as you would have them do to you", since I am rich I should give the poor my recources.

>>724100877
I absolutely agree that humanity and compassion are pillars of a developed society but the using the government to facilitate that won't deliver the intended result but only ends up in an intrinsically unfair system where a few people (the government) get to lord over others and decide who gets what.

Do you really trust Donald Trump and a republican congress to do a fair job of that? Instead I say give as little power as possible in that matter to the government. The government is just made up of politicians, it's not some benevolent, all-seeing, all-powerful entity

>>724100906
taxes are always problematic
taking money by force will always bring more problems than good

>without taxes we wouldnt have roads/hospitals

bullshit, people can still get together to do something that will benefit everyone in their group, you dont need government and police force threat to accomplish that

>but then not everyone would pay

those who dont contribute cant reap the benefits, sounds fair ?

the problem is forcing people to contribute to something you think its better and they dont agree

>>724101040
Bill Gates actually use to be a cunt. His wife turned him around. Sorry

>>724101269
Letting someone take your things is different than someone stealing your things.

I wouldn't steal what you own and I expect you to do the same to me.

And you obviously don't believe that, or you would have sold your frivolous smartphone, computer, tv, car, etc. and donated the money to unicef.

>>724101004
pretty much every man that started his own business and got successful

being rich is not synonym to being a cunt

you are just showing how much envious you are for not being able to get what other people have

>>724101272
I don't believe it to be. And perhaps the ideal I speak of cannot be achieved with our current form of government. As a said, a middle ground between capitalism and communism is out there and it may very well be found in the future. That is, a style of government that allows for greater redistribution of wealth yet retains a collective democratic authority. I wouldn't be surprised if you would say such a government is impossible, but my very faith in humanity tells me that it must be

>>724101795
your faith is wrong

>>724080885
God damn it why did I have to start my new salary job at 24k
Thanks Trump

>>724101513
Rather than some individual stealing your things, this tax policy would be derived from the majority deciding that the rights of the majority outweigh the rights of you as an individual. In a fair system, the majority decides. How does that feel? How does it feel to be an insignificant little spec in comparison to humanity as a whole? Bad? Well, welcome to reality, turns out saving 10 lives is more important than your mustang.

>>724080176
fpbp

>>724101874
I contend, you lack in faith

>>724101795
People are inherently selfish, it's survival instinct dating back to the dawn of civilization. And even though you may point to the fact that prehistoric man would work together to kill a wolly mammoth, if my caveman family starts to starve two weeks later and your tent still has meat from that hunt, I'm going to think more and more about clubbing you in the head so I can survive. A martyr doesn't support a family and that is the basis of human nature. We're not inherently altruistic.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is forced altruism. For you to give me stuff that I want, I have to give you stuff that you want. But none of that matters unless we agree on the basic principle of "my stuff is mine and your stuff is yours." Because once that goes out the window, I start looking at my club again to see when I can bop you unconscious

>>724099246
Sorry if I insulted your intelligence I just didn't expect you to concede to my point on the first post. I thought I'd be nice about it give you some tips. I could just answered "why are you arguing a point you don't know how would work."

I would contest that from conservative to progressivism, nationalism to globalism, capitalism to marxism all happens more like a cycle. You have some people build a nation and they want to protect it, it's prosperous but because of its prosperity the people rest on their laurels, become weak and forget the cruelty of nature. Engage progressivism ala immigration, redistribution of wealth, identity politics and if things don't just kick off into civil war then engage communism which has never worked in the history of mankind.
I don't really believe that deep down everyone is a good person, deep down everyone is selfish because of survival. If you gave someone the option of kill a random individual on earth with the press of a button and it'd reward them millions of dollars they would do it.

Well we have seen such a thing on a micro-scale, the European union, and it hasn't sorted out very well, infact everyone wants out.

But the CEO is the company. He is the person manages everything after all and if you tax him there is nothing stopping him dipping into his company's assets because they are his to use, unless you wanna seize the means of production. And that would take you one step closer to communism.

>>724102100
Who is this "manority" you speak of? Because the US government us currently heeled by Donald Trump and a republicans congress. Do you trust them to manage your money to save those 10 starving kids? Or buy mustangs for themselves?

Why do you think the world always thinks the way you think?

>>724102100
you dont understand the implications to the shit you are saying

1st its never a majority, a government is a very tiny minority doing things that benefits them IN THE NAME OF A MAJORITY
you wanna say that in your perfect society there wouldnt be a government, or they wouldnt do things that way or whatever
but its impossible, that is always the case, you'll have a comission, you'll have a group of concerned citizens, you'll have a tiny group dedicated to act in the name of the majority, whatever the name you wanna call that
its a minority and you just gave them the power to do as they please in your name, hence why always in the history of mankind, all revolutions lead to the same shit way of society we have

2nd, saying he cant have a mustang because its more important to make him work to feed 10 other lives only makes everyone not want to work
who will want to work for a mustang then ? just so that you come take it away to feed more people
its better to be the people not working then, and let the government take away someone else's possession to feed you

equalization of results is the dumbest utopia ever
we should strive for equal opportunities, never equal results

>>724102283
I dont care to what you contend in your ignorant blindness

>>724102329
OP here
You may very well be right, and yet, if we are intrinsically made of only our ancestral traits, our instincts, are we not dead? Are we not unconscious husks of biological material with nothing but our intentions to survive and reproduce? I must believe that we, on some basic level, may come to care and love before we concern ourselves with only ourself. Otherwise meaning to life is absent and always has been, and all discussions over the fundamentals of our society, culture and humanity are for naught.

We must be capable of a system which, too some degree, sets others before ourselves. Otherwise, we the intellectually advanced and Mother Earth are one and the same. Otherwise... What's the point?

>>724102543
>Implying Trumps law to erase 2 regulations for every regulation made absolutely cripples any personal power bureaucrats have.

>>724102923
where did I imply that ?
are you dumb ?
Im not even referring to american government in that post

>>724102543
We don't have equal opportunities in this world. Until we do, wealth distribution in combination with trickle down econ is the path to allowing equal opportunities

>>724103032
sorry I'm not the anon you were having an argument with just thought I'd chime that in.

>>724079552

Protip: 4chan, especially /b/, is not the place to ask this and expect civilized discussion. Try reddit.

>>724096273

You realize there are conservative subreddits, right? It's not just r/politics...

>>724079552
>I'm from Seattle Washington

SAGE

>>724102888
I admire your optimism. I find that on an individual level some, if not most people are good in at least a few ways. But I don't believe in the heavy-handed governmental approach to attempting to rectify all injustices. The government certainly has a place in society but I don't believe its in its nature to be the center of morality for a society- that should be the individuals of that society.

Nice chat OP.

>>724103147
no its not, its a dumb path that will only bring more injustice
you think you can control what the government do in your name, they'll just use you to get what they want, just like all governments have always done in the history of mankind

the only path is assuring self rights to people, acess to the means of defending themselves and letting each and everyone deal with their own problems

>>724079552
>a) not thinking the environment is of any concern
Who says that? Nobody.
b) prolife
This is not the be-all, end-all issue for anybody.
c) trickle down policy as apposed to policy that taxes the rich much more than the poor
Both do that. They're not mutually exclusive.
d) profiling immigrants
Immigrants or illegal immigrants?
e) profiling people of different religious beliefs
Literally who is doing this? I'll kill them.
f) profiling people of a different nationality
I don't give a shit if we don't let Syrians in

>>724102384
Simply regulate and monitor a CEO's business to ensure he doesn't take funds for himself that he isn't allowed

>>724082932
Survival of the fittest bub

>>724103449
Im sure someone with the power to regulate all companies CEOs wont abuse that ever

>>724103449
>>724103539
or a bureaucrat.

>>724079552
I'll try to speak as a person who voted for Trump, but I'm definitely not your traditional gun-toting, Bible-thumping, overweight, uneducated white hick.

A) The environment matters a lot to me. I don't appreciate Trump's disdain towards global warming. However, I can understand some of the reasons why he's not a fan of the EPA— it can be used to seize private (and corporate) land without proper cause, and environmental regulations do restrict businesses.
B) I'm not fully against abortion (I've seen too many lives ruined by pregnancy), but I do believe that you're killing a person when you abort a fetus. The whole "it's just a clump of cells" argument is trash. Humans take time to develop various forms of cognition that are considered to be "essential for humanity" for adults, and every living (and dead, yet not decomposed) human is nothing more than a clump of cells. Abortion is, in my opinion, preferable to reluctant parents giving a really shitty life to someone who never asked for it, though. In the cases of rape and significant birth defects, I also think it's justifiable.
C) Trickle-down is idiocy; companies will pay their employees the minimum possible. I do support taxing higher income brackets far more heavily than they are now. However, I don't support wealth redistribution outside of helping those who genuinely can't work (welfare for the infirm, not the idiot who chooses to have fifteen children while barely holding down a minimum wage position).
D) Mexico has been the largest source of immigrants to the US for many years. More illegal immigrants come from there than anywhere else. Feelings shouldn't trump facts. The wall is too much (overkill and excessively expensive), but Trump's fulfilling a campaign promise and solving a problem.
E) Of the most widely-practiced religions in the current age, Islam is the least compatible with Western ideals. It needs a Reformation of sorts. (Continued)

>>724103839
>companies will pay their employees the minimum possible
Unless an employee makes an excellent argument on why they should have a raise. Comparing what another company will pay them and consequently them quitting would lose them money while they try to find someone to hire.

Also there is such a thing as investing. Just who do you think does the majority of investing. Rich people, they're the ones generously taking a risk on your hip new start up so they can make a buck. Trickle down works.

>>724103839
OP here
A) nice
B) I understand you're argument and I argue that there is a time when the embroidery becomes conscious and that's when it becomes human. Without consciousness, I see an embryo as any other small multicellular organism:a biological machine
C)after reading all these posts I think that trickle down in combination with wealth distribution has some merit, and I also agree with you on who should get that redistributed wealth. Had a thought from this. Other than those who genuinely can't work, perhaps the money should go toward growth in businesses? It would create jobs which may help.
D)I also see illegal immigration as a problem, a complex one at that. Im fine with what Trump is doing about illegal immigrants, for the most part. Where I've had problems is, I actually have friends whose grandparents are at jeapardy of being deported because they are technically illegal despite living and working in the us for over 50 years. So I think there should definitely be acceptions.
E) I'll see the rest first

>>724103423
OP here
A)it's sad but some people believe that :(
B) ok
C) I realize that now. After reading all these posts I think a certain balance between these two policies may be best
D)your thoughts on both are welcome but separately I suppose. I'm more understanding with conservative arguments pertaining to illegal immigrants of course. I don't like the current political climate involving legal immigration right now
E) a lot of people actually. Mostly toward Islam ATM. Please don't kill them you'll start a religious war :P
F)why? They're people too aren't they?

>>724079552
>>724103839
(Continued)
E) Muslims have retained theocracy in the current age. I'm not saying all Muslims are incompatible with Western society, but consider the what tends to occur in dense Muslim communities within Western societies— the practice of sharia law, generally completely incompatible with Western constitutions and law, yet ignored due to political correctness.
F) Americans are generally profiled as backwards, fat, conservative, Christian gun-toters. Many are, which makes the stereotype at least somewhat defensible. Meanwhile, Swedes are considered to be liberal "pussies", and their country is indeed suffering from mass immigration by Islamic migrants who by and large provide no benefit to their hosts. It's stupid to pretend that everyone believes the same beliefs and lives the same life as everyone else, regardless of nationality.
As for skin color, consider how skin color is actually incorporated into legal definitions, laws, etc. Hate crimes (in the US) are almost entirely reserved as a punishment for whites, and racial quotas are for minorities' benefit.

Hardcore Christian "cultists" definitely picked Trump over Hillary, but they don't represent every Trump voter. Many Trump voters were simply people who were tired of the hypocrisy, "progressiveness" (that is, exploitation and almost uninhibited support of any imaginable minority, racial or otherwise), and media control associated with the Democrats. Hillary was an obvious corporate drone. Trump may be an actual one-percenter and top-level rich-as-can-be executive, but his outspoken support for American business and American workers sounded more believable than Hillary's spiel. Also, illegal immigrants are, in fact, criminals. Many people were excited about a potential president who didn't want to coddle and nurture people who have skipped out on laws and regulations in order to take jobs from citizens and send money to their home country. (Continued)

>>724079552
>>724105149
Don't get me wrong— I believe legal immigration to the USA should be much easier, but illegal immigration should not be tolerated (let alone supported through government handout programs and amnesty).

>>724104565
B) I just think it shouldn't be treated as something frivolous. Contraception should be more accessible and subject to more government support, not ripping viable viable fetuses (potential future normal, happy, healthy human beings!) out of wombs with taxpayer's money.
C) Trickle down itself doesn't work. Businesses work to benefit themselves and must be regulated to ensure that consumers and employees are protected. Actual wealth redistribution (that is, in the US, throwing free money at DeQuan and Kenquisha or Billybob and his sister to raise a horde of children) is not the answer. Yes, jobs need to be created, but that means finding a way to encourage (or force) businesses to favor high-wage American workers over outsourcing. It's a horribly complex problem— raw capitalism would mean simply allowing the outsourcing to take place or lowering American quality of life in order to ensure that there jobs will be kept here, but hardcore socialism is always abused by bureaucrats and NEET-type social leeches.
D)If those grandparents have effectively been law-abiding, productive citizens throughout their time in the US, perhaps there should be exceptions, but nationwide, nearly-unconditional amnesty (like Obama tried to force through)? Never.

OP here
Nice chat /b/, you've helped me see how multifaceted these issues are. I hope we can debate as good as this again in the future. Wish I could stay longer but I have to get some well needed shut eye

Have a good night