Nina Turner and the anti-Democrat left

[pondwater]

Yes.

Why is it one person's responsibility to subsidize someone else?

I don't WANT to hurt American business, but we have to protect the environment and if that comes at the cost of people making less money, then also yes.

Actually, we don't have to do shit. But what makes you think that we can actually control the environment?

No.  I'm probably more moderate on guns than you give me credit for.

If you want to ban anything covered by 2A that's currently legal to own then you aren't moderate.

No, not at all.  I'm a big proponent of free speech, in terms of protection from prosecution, but I also believe in consequences brought on to you by society.

So let's use me for an example. I'm pretty much retired. I have everything I need. What are these consequences you speak of?

I don't know what this means.

It means that when a persons feelings get hurt when someone says "retard" (or any other words that are perfectly valid according to the actual definition), you want to ban the word. I'm not sure why people don't understand that words don't matter.

[Dave Gray]

Why is it one person's responsibility to subsidize someone else?

It's part of the social contract.  I think that society runs better when we band together to address certain basic needs, and among them is healthcare.  But also, education, food and shelter safety nets, etc.

But what makes you think that we can actually control the environment?

I trust general scientific consensus on that issue.

If you want to ban anything covered by 2A that's currently legal to own then you aren't moderate.

These amendments are vague and up to interpretation about what specifically is protected, in my opinion.  So, perhaps my view of what is covered in the constitution differs from yours, but rights have limitations that ebb and flow with changes in the world, we know that.
 

So let's use me for an example. I'm pretty much retired. I have everything I need. What are these consequences you speak of?

People will think you're a dick.  
 

It means that when a persons feelings get hurt when someone says "retard" (or any other words that are perfectly valid according to the actual definition), you want to ban the word. I'm not sure why people don't understand that words don't matter.

I never considered banning the word retard.

[Spider-Dan]

I don't want someone loyal to the party.  Party over principal is what caused the GOP to give Trump free reign.

Consider that there exists a middle ground between "I will abandon all my principles to maintain power at any cost" and "I will stab my allies in the back in service of promoting a third-party with no hope to win."

One could, for example, earnestly try to win a primary but NOT be a petulant sore loser in defeat, pathetically whining about (((evil money))) or a "rigged primary" as you back a useless third-party spoiler.

[Fau Teixeira]

Consider that there exists a middle ground between "I will abandon all my principles to maintain power at any cost" and "I will stab my allies in the back in service of promoting a third-party with no hope to win."

One could, for example, earnestly try to win a primary but NOT be a petulant sore loser in defeat, pathetically whining about (((evil money))) or a "rigged primary" as you back a useless third-party spoiler.

I agree. Just look at Bernie Sanders, who earnestly tried to win a primary against Hillary Clinton and then when he lost, he tirelessly campaigned for her against Trump. He did something like 39 events in the last 2 months of her campaign. Only to be blamed (by her) for her loss and to then get shit on for the next four years by the neera tandens of the world.  Good call Spider, some people really shouldn't be petulant sore losers in defeat.

[pondwater]

It's part of the social contract.  I think that society runs better when we band together to address certain basic needs, and among them is healthcare.  But also, education, food and shelter safety nets, etc.

That's your opinion. Maybe the best course of action would be to tax everyone the same percentage rate. Then anyone that supports all these social programs is free to donate any percentage over and above their standard rate to the social welfare programs their opinions support. The liberals should put their money where their mouth is instead of trying to force their opinions on everyone.

I trust general scientific consensus on that issue.

Please explain the "general scientific consensus" on how to reverse climate change.

These amendments are vague and up to interpretation about what specifically is protected, in my opinion.  So, perhaps my view of what is covered in the constitution differs from yours, but rights have limitations that ebb and flow with changes in the world, we know that.

If you don't mind, please explain how your statement applies to the 1st amendment.
 

People will think you're a dick.

That's not entirely correct. A loud and vocal minority may think I'm a dick. Also, I don't consider people thinking "I'm a dick" that as a consequence. The older I get, the less I care what people think. 

However, when people say "We all have the freedom of speech, but our words still have consequences." The impression I get is that they're condoning violence as those consequences. In many discussions on reddit, many people have flat out said that it's perfectly reasonable to beat the shit out of someone who you perceive as a racist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, or any other misuse of the term "phobe". Basically, it's ok to assault anyone that hurts my feelings or disagrees with me.
 

I never considered banning the word retard.

But some people have. That was just an example. There are plenty of things in society that are being canceled for no reason other than it hurts someone's feelings. It's pure nonsense.

[Spider-Dan]

I agree. Just look at Bernie Sanders, who earnestly tried to win a primary against Hillary Clinton and then when he lost, he tirelessly campaigned for her against Trump. He did something like 39 events in the last 2 months of her campaign. Only to be blamed (by her) for her loss and to then get shit on for the next four years by the neera tandens of the world.

I wasn't really even talking about Bernie, but since you bring him up: he did pull the old Trumpian some people say that "if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump."

I don't dispute that Bernie did a bunch of campaign events for Hillary in 2016, and that was a good and helpful thing for him to do.  However, if I run around a house pouring gas everywhere while saying "We need to burn down this dilapidated old house," and then later after I change my mind, a bunch of my buddies who I paid to help me pour gas everywhere start setting the house on fire, the fact that I was the #1 person manning the hoses to put out the fire is somewhat mitigated.

But I do draw a bright line of distinction between what Bernie does and what Nina Turner does.  Bernie is irresponsible, but I believe it's because the only method of campaigning he ever learned is "Democrats are bad, Republicans are bad, vote for me instead."  Nina knows better; she's just a cynical backstabber.  Bernie doesn't run as an independent in the general because he knows it would hand the election to the GOP, but Nina would absolutely do so if she thought she could get the slightest amount of traction, with no concern whatsoever about the outcome.

[Dave Gray]

That's your opinion. Maybe the best course of action would be to tax everyone the same percentage rate. Then anyone that supports all these social programs is free to donate any percentage over and above their standard rate to the social welfare programs their opinions support. The liberals should put their money where their mouth is instead of trying to force their opinions on everyone.

Of course it's my opinion.  That's what we're doing -- sharing opinions.  I don't think a flat tax is reflective of what the super wealthy benefit from society, as opposed to the poor.  A progressive tax system is more fair ethically, but also it's more financially viable and better for society as a whole.

Please explain the "general scientific consensus" on how to reverse climate change.

Well, I'm not a scientist with a lifetime of study in the field, so I'm not super-qualified to give a detailed scientific breakdown, but more than just "climate change", it's the environment, as a whole.  And the term "reverse" is a little bit loaded.  But in general, the understanding is that certain things we do contribute to increased global climate volatility.  Businesses don't care, because their end goal is to make money, so they do those things anyway, so it's the job of government to ensure that they don't.  This is true of climate, but is also true with dumping poison in the waterway or anything else environmentally harmful.

If you don't mind, please explain how your statement applies to the 1st amendment.

Sure.  Rights have limits.  You have argued against this in some cases, but this law has been help up by the courts over and over again.  BUT, those limits ebb and flow based on culture and technology.  So, with speech, you can't threaten to kill someone.  That isn't free speech.  You can't incite a riot.  You can't induce panic by yelling "fire" and causing a stampede.  You can't just walk around naked.  There are laws.  And those laws change based on society.

In terms of the "right to bear arms", it's not really specific what arms mean.  Does it mean any weapon ever invented?  I would argue no.  Can a civilian own a nuke if they have the means to acquire it?  Of course not.  Can they own a rocket launcher?  Can they own a grenade?  Can they own a machine gun?  Can they own a pistol?  Can they own a knife over however many inches?   Are these right guaranteed no matter what?  If you have a restraining order?  If you have a history of mental illness?  If you're underage?  If you've not had a background check?  If you've been convicted of violent crime?  Your answer may be "yes" to all of these, but to me, the answer isn't "yes" across the board and that's a discussion I'm willing to have.  Different parts of the country, different societal truths, different technologies call for an ebb and flow of those rights.  So, my belief is that we have to do our best to understand the intentions of the law and apply it to today -- rather than to try to make black and white interpretations of laws written when the highest form of warfare was a musket.

That's not entirely correct. A loud and vocal minority may think I'm a dick. Also, I don't consider people thinking "I'm a dick" that as a consequence. The older I get, the less I care what people think. 

If you don't care what people think, then you shouldn't have a problem.  When I talk about consequences, I think that you should largely be fully protected by the 1st amendment in terms of being arrested or facing government backlash for your opinions or actions.  HOWEVER, it doesn't mean that people have to employ you, hire you, like you, etc.  Those are the consequences.  If you have shitty positions and your employer doesn't like the way it makes the company look you lose your job because the group makes it happen.  I'm not necessarily FOR that, but it's a reality of capitalism.  The customer is always right is a core concept, if you understand the intended meaning of that phrase.

However, when people say "We all have the freedom of speech, but our words still have consequences." The impression I get is that they're condoning violence as those consequences. In many discussions on reddit, many people have flat out said that it's perfectly reasonable to beat the shit out of someone who you perceive as a racist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, or any other misuse of the term "phobe". Basically, it's ok to assault anyone that hurts my feelings or disagrees with me.

It doesn't mean that at all and that's not the impression that you should get.  What it means is that if Gina Corano wants to have a shitty worldview and say provacative shit about vaccines and the holocaust and election lies, then fans are going to think she's a cunt and Disney is going to send her packing.  And that happened.  She didn't get a call from Uncle Sam.  She got a call from the Mouse.  That's capitalism.

But some people have. That was just an example. There are plenty of things in society that are being canceled for no reason other than it hurts someone's feelings. It's pure nonsense.

I'm not "some people" and would rather discuss my positions that positions that someone else in the world might have that isn't here espousing them.

[Spider-Dan]

Maybe the best course of action would be to tax everyone the same percentage rate.

Why the same percentage rate?  Why not tax everyone the same amount of actual dollars?
Why should I have to pay more actual dollars in taxes just because I made more money than the next guy?  Stop punishing my success.

Just like the grimiest woke liberal, you believe that rich people should pay more taxes.  You're just in denial about it.

[pondwater]

Why the same percentage rate?  Why not tax everyone the same amount of actual dollars?
Why should I have to pay more actual dollars in taxes just because I made more money than the next guy?  Stop punishing my success.

Just like the grimiest woke liberal, you believe that rich people should pay more taxes.  You're just in denial about it.

Good idea, even better. Every federal taxpayers rate is $2400.00 a year. Feel free to donate more to your social safety net of choice if you so desire.

[Spider-Dan]

Good idea, even better. Every federal taxpayers rate is $2400.00 a year. Feel free to donate more to your social safety net of choice if you so desire.

So based on the number of adults in the US (not all of whom are federal taxpayers, but whatever), you believe that the entire federal budget should be under $623 billion.

The budget of the Department of Defense for FY 2020 was $721.5 billion.  Feel free to donate more to your military of choice?

[pondwater]

So based on the number of adults in the US (not all of whom are federal taxpayers, but whatever), you believe that the entire federal budget should be under $623 billion.

The budget of the Department of Defense for FY 2020 was $721.5 billion.  Feel free to donate more to your military of choice?

I mean if you're going to throw out sarcastic ridiculous things, I will too.

Anyhow, good we have a deal. I'll be more than happy to donate to my physical protection from foreign aggression. But I'll provide my own food and shelter. The more I think about it, just like cable companies should offer A la carte packages. Aside from a base tax rate for everyone across the board, the government should offer these safety net programs as an option for the people who will take advantage of them. You pay only pay taxes for the government services you choose to utilize.

[Spider-Dan]

The sarcastic and ridiculous things I'm throwing out are your beliefs, not mine.  I have no problem taxing the wealthy at a 90% top marginal tax rate, just as we did under noted Communist Dwight Eisenhower.  My set of beliefs are quite internally consistent, thank you.

Meanwhile, you're so dedicated to the idea of protecting the rich that you are currently arguing that the entire federal government should receive 15% less funding than we presently provide the military alone.  Whatever it takes to make sure that Elon Musk doesn't pay a cent more than he should!

You're the only one stuck defending absurd positions, here.

[pondwater]

The sarcastic and ridiculous things I'm throwing out are your beliefs, not mine.  I have no problem taxing the wealthy at a 90% top marginal tax rate, just as we did under noted Communist Dwight Eisenhower.  My set of beliefs are quite internally consistent, thank you.

Eisenhower was a Communist? I missed that part in history class. Your self described "radical" agenda is a far cry away from being consistent.

Meanwhile, you're so dedicated to the idea of protecting the rich that you are currently arguing that the entire federal government should receive 15% less funding than we presently provide the military alone. 

It's funny how you left wing radicals flip on a dime. I thought you guys wanted to slash military spending? I thought you guys were against carpet bombing Brown and Asian people in far off lands. Your puzzle pieces don't fit, go play with a Barbie doll or something.

Whatever it takes to make sure that Elon Musk doesn't pay a cent more than he should!

Why would ANYONE pay a cent more in taxes they are legally required? Anyone that doesn't use any legal means necessary to lower their tax burden is an idiot. Do you Spider? Do you take all the exemptions and tax breaks that apply to your situation? 

You're the only one stuck defending absurd positions, here.

There is nothing absurd about wanting to keep the property you have. Instead of having it taken away from you through no fault of your own and given to other people.

[Spider-Dan]

Eisenhower was a Communist? I missed that part in history class.

The top marginal income tax rate during his administration was 90%.  When Democrats today propose raising the top income tax to less than half of that, they are called Communists.

I thought you guys wanted to slash military spending?

I do... but not to give those taxes back to the rich.  I want to spend that money (and more!) on domestic programs.

Why would ANYONE pay a cent more in taxes they are legally required?

Irrelevant.  You and yours want to change the law to reduce his legal tax burden, which has nothing to do with how existing law is followed and enforced.

There is nothing absurd about wanting to keep the property you have.

We're not talking about YOUR taxes (which I want to reduce), nor are we talking about mine.  You're out here simping for billionaires, trying to make sure THEY keep the property THEY have.

If Elon Musk was on this forum insisting that he should keep his money, I'd at least understand it: it's motivated self-interest.  Fortunately for him, he doesn't need to because America has an army of wealth worshippers that will do the insisting for him.

[pondwater]

The top marginal income tax rate during his administration was 90%.  When Democrats today propose raising the top income tax to less than half of that, they are called Communists.

Nobody in a free country should have 90% of their property taken. Seems like you're at Taco Bell trying to order a Whopper. Maybe you're in the wrong place.

I do... but not to give those taxes back to the rich.  I want to spend that money (and more!) on domestic programs.

You seem to think that spending more is better. I fundamentally disagree.

Irrelevant.  You and yours want to change the law to reduce his legal tax burden, which has nothing to do with how existing law is followed and enforced.

No, I want to reduce my tax burden as much as possible while paying my equal share. I have no interest in Musk, Gates, or Buffet taxes, that's their business.

We're not talking about YOUR taxes (which I want to reduce), nor are we talking about mine.  You're out here simping for billionaires, trying to make sure THEY keep the property THEY have.

Simping for billionaires? Shit, I'm trying to keep my tax burden as low as possible and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Since you have no idea what I own you can't say that you're trying to lower my taxes. Let's just say that I'm retired in my 40s. Billionaires are going to keep their property one way or the other. 

If Elon Musk was on this forum insisting that he should keep his money, I'd at least understand it: it's motivated self-interest.  Fortunately for him, he doesn't need to because America has an army of wealth worshippers that will do the insisting for him.

That's because all throughout history people without money have been jealous of wealthy people and want to redistribute the wealth. No different from a bum breaking in your house, eating your food, drinking your beer, and fucking your old lady. He didn't earn any of it and he doesn't deserve any of it. If you want to give him yours, that's between you and him. He can't have mine without a fight.