There Will Be Hell Toupée! (The Donald Trump Thread)

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

9 minutes ago, AlexH. said:

I remember when this was predominantly a punk board and "eat the rich" wouldn't have been an unpopular opinion :-/ bummer how things change. 

Cool story.

 

The problem here is, people aren't saying eat the rich. They're saying, socialism is rad, let's fuck the middle class because we don't understand how this will work in practice.

 

Edit: They'd also be saying fuck the government, but that's exactly what brucie is arguing against.

Edited June 5, 2016 by The Ghost of Randy Savage

[Shitty Rambo]

8 minutes ago, AlexH. said:

I remember when this was predominantly a punk board and "eat the rich" wouldn't have been an unpopular opinion :-/ bummer how things change. 

How, in ALL THE FUCKS, is expanding government 'punk rock'? Holy shit.

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

3 minutes ago, Shitty Rambo said:

How, in ALL THE FUCKS, is expanding government 'punk rock'? Holy shit.

Obviously punk isn't DIY anymore, it's Get It Done For You (through unfair taxation). All the same though, right?

[heyimdb]

45 minutes ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

Keep in mind that Libertarians don't want to destroy the government. They want to lessen it's impact on people's daily lives and downsize it. A lot of what you look for in military spending cuts, they (we) see in other places. It's not a complete deregulation the markets, but we can't go around taking money from everyone to give to those less fortunate, because there is always someone less fortunate than the next guy.

^this guy. Give this man a handshake. A manly one. Or a pat on the back. Get this guy a lap dance. In the club. Distribute wealth in strip clubs. No seriously. This guy gets it. 

[AlexH.]

1 minute ago, Shitty Rambo said:

How, in ALL THE FUCKS, is expanding government 'punk rock'? Holy shit.

How is anti-corporatism not punk rock? Cmon dude

 

i don't think I've advocated for expanding government in this thread, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's a subversive idea. I am saying there is a valid reason for an FDA, and an OSHA, and a department of education... and that corporations can't be trusted to have free reign on the economy.

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

Just now, heyimdb said:

^this guy. Give this man a handshake. A manly one. Or a pat on the back. Get this guy a lap dance. In the club. Distribute wealth in strip clubs. No seriously. This guy gets it. 

I'd prefer a milkshake to a handshake, but I'll take what I can get.

[heyimdb]

"I'm so punk rock that I believe in making everyone poorer to make the government more powerful. Because the answer to all of everyone's problems that I feel so egotistically qualified to have a solution for is more government control! Yeah! Uh... yeah!"

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

1 minute ago, AlexH. said:

How is anti-corporatism not punk rock? Cmon dude

 

i don't think I've advocated for expanding government in this thread, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's a subversive idea. I am saying there is a valid reason for an FDA, and an OSHA, and a department of education... and that corporations can't be trusted to have free reign on the economy.

And no one is arguing against the FDA, OSHA or the dept. of ed. What we are arguing against is taking our money and giving it to people who "deserve it more" than we who earned it. The entities you mentioned serve valid purposes, but Libertarians want to minimize the say the government has in how we spend our money, and how much of that money is taken away from us and given to other people/used frivolously. (Before someone makes this point: those aren't interchangeable, they are two different things I'm mentioning at the same time.)

[heyimdb]

3 minutes ago, AlexH. said:

How is anti-corporatism not punk rock? Cmon dude

 

i don't think I've advocated for expanding government in this thread, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's a subversive idea. I am saying there is a valid reason for an FDA, and an OSHA, and a department of education... and that corporations can't be trusted to have free reign on the economy.

Corporatism exists solely because of government. Cmon dude. 

[AlexH.]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

And no one is arguing against the FDA, OSHA or the dept. of ed. 

The entities you mentioned serve valid purposes

Uh, this would be radically different from the views of Libertarians I've interacted with, including some in this thread. What you're describing is basically the boilerplate Republican platform, no?

[AlexH.]

6 minutes ago, heyimdb said:

Corporatism exists solely because of government. Cmon dude. 

Explain how, if enacted today, a free market system would be able to prevent corporate malfeasance for the sake of profit.

[Shitty Rambo]

11 minutes ago, AlexH. said:

Uh, this would be radically different from the views of Libertarians I've interacted with, including some in this thread 

Nobody ITT pushed a full blown AnCap agenda.

[heyimdb]

11 minutes ago, AlexH. said:

Explain how, if enacted today, a free market system would be able to prevent corporate malfeasance for the sake of profit.

"Malfeasance", ooooooh that's a big sophisticated passionate word. Straight out of Davey Havoc's lyric book with a Tim Burton character on the cover. Corporations are not profitable for an individual. Selfishness reigns supreme. 

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

28 minutes ago, AlexH. said:

Uh, this would be radically different from the views of Libertarians I've interacted with, including some in this thread. What you're describing is basically the boilerplate Republican platform, no?

Quote

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

OSHA and FDA should exist only as a check to make sure this happens. OSHA makes sure your boss isn't forcing you into anything, FDA makes sure you're not forced to eat something harmful without knowing it. They shouldn't have roles beyond that, but I'm not against them existing.

 

Quote

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States , all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

 

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

I'm not naive enough to believe that a country can exist with no infrastructure and no taxation. I think that we could exist with much less, but having none is anarchy. Allowing the government to interfere with the things that I have earned or own is absurd to me though.

 

Quote

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

The underlined portion is where I'm thinking you're having a problem understanding my thinking. I don't think OSHA interferes here though, but rather makes sure that the contractual agreement, (employer to employee) isn't violated. Dept. of Ed does the same with teacher to client (student), and FDA between the supplier and consumer of food. For the most part, these are implied contracts, so it's something that does need to be slightly regulated. OSHA is a little more clear cut, but there is such a large possibility for abuse and violations that employers also need to be monitored to some degree.

 

Sorry I'm not a starry-eyed idealist who tries to shove my ideas down everyone's throats...?

 

I may not be as hardcore as some folks you've come across, but then again, the world wouldn't be as fun if everyone fit the exact same mold would it?

 

 

Edit: I will say some reforms need to be made to the Board of Ed right now. I don't agree with their decisions in recent years, but I also don't have a kid (and don't plan to) so it isn't as much a point of contention for me. I don't think they need to be abolished entirely like some folks do though.

Edited June 5, 2016 by The Ghost of Randy Savage

[fuckinandsuckinandtouchin]

[TheGhostOfRandySavage]

12 minutes ago, curator said:

[SeeMoreGlass]

As a teacher, The Board of Education needs to be eliminated because it does nothing but stunt learning and take valuable time in the classroom away from teachers who need it. 

 

I think Libertarians have some cool ideas that I agree with but I don't think it really does anything to stop the amount of corporate welfare that is happening in America. We hear all the time about the poor "taking our tax money" but the media never focuses on the corporations that hide money in offshore accounts and cash giant bonus checks that they get for doing absolutely nothing. I feel like there is some great discussion in this thread but we are focusing too much on "isms" (and according to ferris beuhler isms are not good). Regardless of which "party" we belong to or identify with we have to recognize that the capitalist system we live in is royally fucking everyone but themselves and there needs to be some accountability. As a country I think we should take a long look at the tax programs that were in place before Nixon and that fucking piece of shit Ronald Reagan were in office. I think there are some answers in taxing corporations and bringing jobs back to america, we just have to recognize that we are going to piss off corporations in the process and we shouldn't give a shit because corporations are not poeple

 

This whole election is so frustrating to me because I feel like we are getting distracted by the media by all this other bullshit when the solutions are right in front of our face. We just need a way to elect leaders that will put these ideas into practice and are not easily corruptible which is something we don't really have right now. Besides...is it possible for a leader to get into power and not be corrupted? 

Edited June 5, 2016 by thispartysucks128

[Bladewillisisdead]

8 hours ago, The Ghost of Randy Savage said:

Cool story.

 

The problem here is, people aren't saying eat the rich. They're saying, socialism is rad, let's fuck the middle class because we don't understand how this will work in practice.

 

Edit: They'd also be saying fuck the government, but that's exactly what brucie is arguing against.

No, definitely fuck the government. I'm punk enough to kill and eat the rich, but not punk enough to believe no government would work. I'm saying that our tax money needs to be better allocated to help the citizens. I'm not saying I should get free shit. The wealth gap in this country is disgusting. The middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer. I've seen first hand how working full time and living paycheck to paycheck leaves little hope of improving your situation. There are a lot of people far worse off than me. People working more than full time who still can't afford to provide for themselves and their families. Even if someone is working at McDonald's they should be paid a living god damn wage. Companies like Wal-Mart not paying a living wage just places more people on welfare and public assistance.

 

 

The only thing that should be 100% socialized is healthcare. Our current system is fucking embarrassing.

[Bladewillisisdead]

I'm also only being a little hyperbolic when I talk about people like the Waltons being publicly executed. I'm anti-fascist but I'd let that shit slide.

[Shitty Rambo]

4 hours ago, thispartysucks128 said:

As a teacher, The Board of Education needs to be eliminated because it does nothing but stunt learning and take valuable time in the classroom away from teachers who need it. 

 

I think Libertarians have some cool ideas that I agree with but I don't think it really does anything to stop the amount of corporate welfare that is happening in America. We hear all the time about the poor "taking our tax money" but the media never focuses on the corporations that hide money in offshore accounts and cash giant bonus checks that they get for doing absolutely nothing. I feel like there is some great discussion in this thread but we are focusing too much on "isms" (and according to ferris beuhler isms are not good). Regardless of which "party" we belong to or identify with we have to recognize that the capitalist system we live in is royally fucking everyone but themselves and there needs to be some accountability. As a country I think we should take a long look at the tax programs that were in place before Nixon and that fucking piece of shit Ronald Reagan were in office. I think there are some answers in taxing corporations and bringing jobs back to america, we just have to recognize that we are going to piss off corporations in the process and we shouldn't give a shit because corporations are not poeple

 

This whole election is so frustrating to me because I feel like we are getting distracted by the media by all this other bullshit when the solutions are right in front of our face. We just need a way to elect leaders that will put these ideas into practice and are not easily corruptible which is something we don't really have right now. Besides...is it possible for a leader to get into power and not be corrupted? 

At no point did anyone in this thread say we should completely dismantle the state and that anarchy was the only answer. That shit escalated real quick due to the emotional response of hardcore Liberals (aka your typical VC user).

 

My bad for pointing out that there's another viable presidental candidate in this race if you're scared of Trump and don't like Murder McGee on the left side. But fuck it, you guys care more about this 'next generation' more than you do innocent civilians dying in other countries or what kind of madness Trump is capabe of. You'd rather sink with Bernie then than get on the only life raft in sight. Real fuckin' logical guys.

[Bladewillisisdead]

The problem is that with our current system, it's sad to say, but no 3rd party option can truly be viable. At least not at this point. Even if anti-Trump republicans and anti-Hilary democrats went for the same 3rd option, Trump/Hilary have too strong a hold. Even then, no way would it be that clean. I was excited about Sanders, but lost hope months ago.

 

 

I don't like Hilary's pro-war background or strong corporate ties, but at least she hasn't said she'd overturn Roe v Wade or defund Planned Parenthood, two things I feel more strongly about than anything I've mentioned in this current discussion. Also, having a more left leaning Supreme Court judge appointed is incredibly important. I hate that it's once again come to "the lesser of two evils" 

[Bladewillisisdead]

Also, "next generation" also means "this country going forward"

[heyimdb]

Gary Johnson ran third last election. Many people see Trump as a viable alternative, so your statement is invalid. 

[NapalmBrain]

4 minutes ago, heyimdb said:

Gary Johnson ran third last election. Many people see Trump as a viable alternative, so your statement is invalid. 

He got less than 1% of the national vote, Trump being a viable alternative just goes to show how weak the republican party that they couldn't run anyone to beat him. Politics in this country are still basically a two party system, I wish it wasn't so but it is. He might have stood a better chance had he ran as a democrat

[heyimdb]

3 hours ago, Bladewillisisdead said:

No, definitely fuck the government. I'm punk enough to kill and eat the rich, but not punk enough to believe no government would work. I'm saying that our tax money needs to be better allocated to help the citizens. I'm not saying I should get free shit. The wealth gap in this country is disgusting. The middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer. I've seen first hand how working full time and living paycheck to paycheck leaves little hope of improving your situation. There are a lot of people far worse off than me. People working more than full time who still can't afford to provide for themselves and their families. Even if someone is working at McDonald's they should be paid a living god damn wage. Companies like Wal-Mart not paying a living wage just places more people on welfare and public assistance.

 

 

The only thing that should be 100% socialized is healthcare. Our current system is fucking embarrassing.

Why should healthcare be socialized? How can the nation afford that?