are there any fellow non-liberals here?
i like Rand Paul this year.
I'm going with Trump. Only candidate running right now who wants to stop violent criminals from entering the border, let both parties know what losers they are, and wants to pass non-discrimination laws for LGBT. For those of you who are worried that his crazy Republican stuff will pass keep in mind that the Republican leaders (as in the ones in actual positions of power) are against Trump and will block everything they can. They hate that someone who the Koch family can't afford to bribe might be our president
Not at all. Hopefully this link works. It's an article about how he doesn't give a crap whether someone's gay or not, supports the idea of anti-discrimination laws and is/was against don't ask don't tell (the article is from 2000). The only thing he opposes is gay marriage (but was for the same legal benefits for gay couples. He just didn't want us to use the word marriage) but that's now a moot point
They have no reason to drop the social conservatives unless they know they can get votes by dropping them. The more gays that vote Repub the more they'd need to pander to keep us voting for them.
Not really. The ones who actually DO something to help us instead of just claiming they will are a small minority in the Democrats. I consider talk to be worthless, whether they claim to love us or hate us, if they're not actually going to act on it
I was just stating that Bernie is the only one who was actually supportive of gay rights before all that shit, unlike the others who just want to score a quick vote.
Also I'm not a one issue voter.
>go ahead and tax the rich more and run all the successful people out of the country
What the fuck why would I ever tax the rich more when it's my plan to be one of the rich?
I ain't gonna shoot myself in the foot.
>Hillary doesn't support gay people?
Really? Watch this clip (starting at 14:32) and tell me that Hillary wouldn't be a pro-LGBT president.
Rand Paul is first choice, Ill vote for him but he aint gonna make it to the final election. Neither will Bernie, but Id vote for him if he made it (Assuming Paul did not). Its gonna be Bush vs. Clinton, welcome to the NWO yall.
I'd still prefer a party that openly says they care about our rights, even if they don't do anything about it. That way, they're at least reluctant to do anything blatantly anti-LGBT for fear of losing support.
I wouldn't mind getting rid of all the successful people in this country if it can make the rest of us successful. What good does it do me for others to be successful when I am not? That's like saying "Sorry you got fired, but hey plenty of other people have jobs."
T R U M P
Alone for the fact that he might actually keep his promise and deport illegals.
>b-but I will be rich one day
Chances are you WON'T be rich... and even if you are, you are going to be rich regardless of the details of the U.S. tax code. I mean, there were rich people when the upper tax tier was 90% of income. Right now the upper income tax bracket is 39.6%.
It is far, far more likely that shifting more tax burden to the wealthy will HELP YOU move into the upper class.
>b-but I will be rich one day
I plan to own the fucking world one day.
Aim for the stars they say.
>It is far, far more likely that shifting more tax burden to the wealthy will HELP YOU move into the upper class.
So if I were to massively tax the rich, then undo that once I become rich myself, I'll become even more rich, right?
Trump. I like his slogan and hair. I also admire a politician who starts lying*cough* I mean describing what he's going to do in office with little "America is a great country but it has issues" "I'm so glad to see you all today to discuss blah blah" fluff like that. He gets in quick.
no no as in no one believes in trickle down
no one has ever advocated it ever
did you read the article?
wealth trickles UP in the wage system, with workers getting wages first and capital owners having to wait for their product to sell or fail.
there's also no rational economist who would dispute that at some point taxes are counterproductive for economic growth
Its better to vote for Bernie. Paul is a waste of vote.
The main people on the list and most advertised through out the media is Bernie and Hillary.
Give it to Bernie it will actually count and he has a chance
I like Carly a lot, to be honest. I don't agree with her positions on everything, but she's a sharp woman with some very good ideas about how to run the government. One of her biggest hurdles, though, is the fact that people continue to (falsely) spout the diatribe that she ruined HP. It's a shame that she starts at such a disadvantage. If she doesn't win the nomination, I'd be happy to see her as a VP pick or even campaigning for another political position. I think she has the will and the mind to make a positive change for the US.
Ted Cruz has also impressed me with his ability as a rhetorician and his no-BS approach to politics, but I honestly think he shouldn't be President just because he's such a good senator.
Rand Paul is another senator who has an important voice in the political scene these days, but I don't think he's President material.
Unfortunately Trump is just bananas and Carson says a little too much every time he speaks and betrays some of his imperfection as a candidate. It adds up in the public's eye over time. The other repubs might as well not even be considered desu.
The democratic candidates are all entirely unelectable. Bernie has his heart in the right place, but his ideas for implementation are way too flawed. Hillary is probably actually Satan with all the ridiculous shit she seems to get away with, and I have no idea why the other guys are even bothering to run.
I think it's a damn shame that most gays only vote insofar as it affects their personal little bubble of homosexuality. Nearly every gay I meet seems to be raging far-left liberal, ALWAYS crying "muh marriage equality!!!" Gay marriage is honestly an issue that should be incredibly low priority. Yeah, I support gay marriage. Is it the only thing that affects my voting preference? No, because I'm not a selfish brat who doesn't care about the world outside myself. There are so many FAR more important things that are affecting this nation that people SHOULD care about.
did you read the article?
do you know of any economist that advocates trickle down? as sowell said "Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place."
no more wars please
you seem like a sane person especially compared to the rest of these far left nuts but carly is no different from any of the republicans except she has something to "prove" and she said the first person she'd call when elected was the PM of fucking israel
i don't want any more young men dying in the sandbox and the only anti war rhetoric i've seen has been from Paul and Trump
The issue is that the US is going to have to face it one way or another eventually, and her approach is the most sensible, despite it seeming (at face value) to be war mongering. The United States is one of the biggest players on the global stage whether it wants to be or not. There are other powers in the world who outright state that they hate America and America's allies, and would prefer for them to be wiped off the face of the earth. There are others who do not outright say this, but through their actions strongly imply it. These same powers are gaining more influence and control over their regions every day: regions that are directly tied to US interests.
International politics are not pretty and they never have been. Being a meek and gentle "superpower" is an oxymoron. If you're big, you need to flex your muscles or be destroyed. Fiorina doesn't suggest starting a World War 3, but she DOES propose some legitimate measures in ensuring the United States remains a dominant player on the global scene. I don't think it's fair or good that the world is like this, but that's the reality. She understands this more than any other candidate seems to.
Supply side economics does not work. It never has. If you want to see the difference between tax and spend liberals vs republicans you need to look no further than the comparison of Minnesota (With arguably the best governor in the country, a tax and spend democrat, Mark Dayton) vs Wisconsin (Scott Walker LOL.)
If you aren't in the top decile of earners there's almost NO reason to vote Republican... and even then if you had any kind of moral compass you wouldn't either.
Feel free to google "Minnesota vs Wisconsin" to see how Republicans literally DESTROY states.
The biggest issue facing the U.S. is the economy, the stagnant middle class (And I mean all parts of it, from lower middle to upper middle) the increasing wealth disparity...
The only person that has a plan to fix this is Bernie, without going on a 50 page diatribe about each point...
> FTT Tax
> No offshore tax shelters
> A progressive estate tax
> Curb pentagon spending
> Repeal bush tax cuts on the top 2% (vs only 1%)
> Tax capital gains as much as labor
> Curb subsidies and breaks on energy companies who are the most PROFITABLE in the world
> require medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharm
All of these are steps in the right direction for people like you and I
>the stagnant middle class
you have no idea what middle class even means, just admit it
middle class=educated professional
of which there is a glut created by cheap student loans
you are not owed money because other people have more
> Starts off with juvenile ad hominem
> Dangerously retarded
> Posts graph with literally no information on it
Reminds me of those people who were posting state colors with their supposed IQ next to them.
Articles from 2015.
I'll give you a hint, Minnesota is 16th, Wisconsin is 29th.
Minnesota ranks 9th in unemployment.
Theres literally dozens of articles.
I love that you put a blue dot next to Wisconsin in your cute little graphic.
Look in the mirror kid.
>you have no idea what middle class even means, just admit it
>middle class=educated professional
>of which there is a glut created by cheap student loans
Stagnant doesn't mean that there's a shortage of people in the middle class, it means they're not doing well economically.
>you are not owed money because other people have more
Why do libertarians get triggered so easily?
I don't think that's the case, and it's not as easy as that anyway. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the Russians are working to destabilize the situation even further. Russia has proven over the past few years that it has an incredibly expansionist agenda. Russia's presence in Syria alone should be cause for worry. They aren't there to create peace. They're there to solidify their own seat at the table. Putin wants influence in the region and believes that backing Assad under the guise of "crating stability" is the way to do it.
Assad himself is a controversial figure. He is evidenced to have committed vast crimes against humanity, and seems to have no interest in helping the people of his nation. Russia, Iran, and many of the other current players in the region are NOT interested in an unbiased or even peaceful kind of regional stability. They are interested only in a regional stability that benefits their influence and posture against those they are interested in defeating. Helping Russia and Iran achieve more power and influence are not necessarily the smart thing to do at this point. I will not entirely discount the idea that a peaceful, fair accord could be made between the US and Russia. The problem is right now that Russia believes it has the upper hand on the US because of its weakening influence internationally, which gives them more negotiating power, and thus a better ability to screw the US over. Maybe once the US has shown some of its strength again that would be more realistic for our interests.
As well, I am mindful that this is a continually developing situation, and I have confidence (and hope) that all of the candidates are as well. If Fiorina's (or anyone's) position on this matter changes over the coming months, I would not be surprised nor would I hold it against them.
Hey sweetheart, it was the Republicans that have historically stood for the rights of minorities.
Just because they aren't slaves of the fascist LGBT lobby (which, if they had their way, would persecute Christians and non-sjw's out of America) doesn't mean that they hate gays.
>iran does not pose a threat to america
>syria does not pose a threat to america
Iran and Syria backed by Russia and (potentially, but disputably) China DO pose a threat to America, though. Certainly even without Russia and China, Iran and Syria pose a threat to American interests in the region, particularly almost ALL of our allies there: old, new, potential, and actual.
> calls anon retarded
> posts graphic with states and labels them based on how they voted for president not who governs them or controls senate/houses
No, my friend, you are a fucking idiot.
>Hey sweetheart, it was the Republicans that have historically stood for the rights of minorities.
That hasn't been true in decades.
>Just because they aren't slaves of the fascist LGBT lobby (which, if they had their way, would persecute Christians and non-sjw's out of America) doesn't mean that they hate gays.
Wanting equal rights is equivalent to fascism now?
>we are richer because of "wealth disparity"
Who's "we"? Obviously not the people on the wrong side of that disparity.
>That hasn't been true in decades.
Examples? Remember, we are talking about equal rights before the law.
>Wanting equal rights is equivalent to fascism now?
I'm talking about the legal action taken against religious businesses for declining service for religious reasons, and the lobbying to ban religious speech on the basis of it being "hate speech"- a nebulous concept if anything.
Canada's median income has caught the U.S. - In just 2000 they were lagging VERY far behind. The issue is the growing wealth disparity not the fact that one exists.
Did you know that all those zany socialist countries like Sweden and Denmark et al have people at the 20th percentile earning more than Americans. The point at which Americans catch up with some of these countries is at the 10th-5th percentile...
How can you say it's not in the best interest of nearly EVERYBODY to not vote republican. Republican party is now a fucking joke.
they have no nukes you fucking idiot
can't you fuck off and stop trying to kill 80 million people?
what the fuck is wrong with you neocon shitiots
we have a fucking deal now even, even though its Iran's RIGHT to develop nuclear energy unimpeded via the IEAE treaty they signed decades ago
Those socialist countries like Sweden and Denmark have also privatised education and introduced education vouchers-- outright heresy & apostasy to the SJW Democrats. What do you have against social mobility? Income disparity would be no issue if there was mobility.
Nothing I've said is in the least bit "Marxist." Cute loaded personal attack though, doesn't matter if it's true or not... Very solid display of fucktardation.
I'm an airline pilot who belongs to a union. I will forever fight on the behalf of labor because I know what greed is and how companies rape their employees. The working class, everybody who isn't in the top decile is being raped... There's nothing more to say. You have no argument at all... I gave you half a dozen great things Bernie would do and it has nothing to do with Marxism. The fact you're even implying he's a marxist just shows you for what you are.
>iran does not pose a threat to america
>syria does not pose a threat to america
Do you just keep saying this in the hope that it's true, or are you legitimately ignorant to the entire situation in the Middle East for the past 5 years or so? Or perhaps you really don't know what "threat to America" means.
I'm not him, and I don't believe Iran and Syria are BIG threats to America's existence as a nation, but to deny that they are any threat at all is just absolutely silly. They pose a real threat to America's allies and ability to function in the region. The reality is that America might be capable of putting itself in a situation where they aren't a realistic threat, but especially under the current American leadership, that does not seem to be on the table. Syria is in incredible disarray right now, but the entire crisis in the nation is a threat to America's allies.
>they have no nukes you fucking idiot
I didn't say they did.
>can't you fuck off and stop trying to kill 80 million people?
Destroying nuclear infrastructure and replacing the government is not killing 80 million people, buddy
>what the fuck is wrong with you neocon shitiots
I ain't a neo-con, just not an idealistic pacifist
>we have a fucking deal now even, even though its Iran's RIGHT to develop nuclear energy unimpeded via the IEAE treaty they signed decades ago
Sweetheart, no country has the right to do anything if it threatens the security of other nations.
Yes, as the income studies that have been done show that there is significant mobility in and out of those income brackets for the educated.
Are you retarded? Or just an average democrat?
The republican party is not the reason America does poorly and -- dare I say -- neither is the democratic party.
It is the mindset behind American partisan politics in general. I understand that partisan politics are a thing everywhere, but in the US it is especially pronounced, and especially detrimental. Both major parties espouse views that are beneficial for economic growth and social well-being, and both major parties espouse views that are disgustingly regressive and ineffective. The problem is that voters feel forced to choose one party or another, and each party has the mindset that they MUST espouse their party's entire platform or be labeled an outcast. The other party is the ENEMY and must not be agreed with.
This back-and-forth is what puts the nation behind. There is no legislation existent or seriously considered that can allow the country to assess or remedy most of its issues because the United States has two parties that both espouse a mixture of toxic and helpful views and just fight back and forth over packaged deals rather than reflecting on what their constituents actually want and conceding one or two ideas for the greater good.
I was in this thread and you were talkin' about people in this thread. I just wanted to clear that up. You know, as an anonymous anime forum poster I have a very important image to keep. I can't have people on the internet whom I will never meet and who will never affect my life thinking the wrong things about me! I just wanted to clear the air in case there were any misconceptions. That's all, bruh.
I'd rather not toss my vote away.
>inb4 cynical or sheeple
It's easier to get an already popular party that is sympathetic towards your view to do stuff, rather than vote for a long shot candidate.
Britbongs are way ahead of you.
Partisanship is a plague upon the land and it's infected the minds of stupid people.
At this point I'm not even sure the US populace should have the right to vote. I think I'd be more comfortable with an oligarchy at this point than having the people decide anything. Look ITT if you want evidence. 90% of the "arguments" in here are pure rhetoric that one side shouts about the other on a daily basis.
Hell, a good portion of the shit said in here is just factually incorrect, and any attempt to disprove it with research would be met with "yeah, liberal/conservative funded research!!!". Y'all ought to be ashamed desu senpai.
I mean, you might as well.It's honestly no less stupid to say shit like that than it is to pretend like the issues faced on a national level aren't unfathomably complicated and there isn't just a simple solution the other side's just too dumb to see. If that were the case,
ball-less "men". That is the definition of a non liberal. Go start another war and blame it on everyone else! 9205970550 talk some of your death worshipping talk to my face, faggo's.
Trump is a clinton plant with no voting record, no plans or goals and no experience whos only purpose is to split up the conservative vote and hand the election to hillary. People only like him because he's blunt and not politically correct.
It probably won't work cause that bitch is psycho and everyone knows it but still.
Don't be a trump chump, stand with rand.
Trump is just the person we might need as a President.
Someone that is like on both sides and can sell the parties and Americans on things they are normally opposed to.
Other wise I stand with Rand too.
i have gender dysphoria and I want a conservative republican to win so I can receive appropriate mental health help instead of all of the tax dollars going to pointless government programs. I want tumblr to stop infecting science. I want to cure my feelings instead of singing kumbaya and ignoring all of the suicides
I don't think he was saying that your particular post was a fallacy. Anon's explaining that there is already a term to describe what you are explaining.
There is one key exception to the genetic fallacy though.
"When the origin of evidence or of premises is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid"
For example a judge in a court of law can reject eye witness testimony if they've already lied about a key point in the case at hand.
Money might get spent on research for climate change but it certainly doesn't get spent on reducing the effects of climate change. If you left Black Science Guy's speech there going "Wow. Republicans are great for science and Democrats are horrible for it!", you're a simple person and even he would disagree with that.
i had the same stance before magical negro's video, but anyway what exactly are you proposing for reducing the effects of climate change?
I honestly don't give a shit about the climate, but if scientists need to study it and release plans for reducing climate change then I'd want money to go to them instead of people who don't want to work
We need a strong-man government not keked by international corporations.
Trump is the closest thing to that.
At least, he'll be entertaining. I learned my lesson voting Obama in 08 thinking ObamaCare would actually help people rather than just subsidize private insurers.
it's hard to admit that Trump would make a good pres, but he really is the top republican candidate:
>cares only about money and trade
>not afraid of pissing people off
A large part of the role of potus is to be the face of america in foreign policy, and world leaders already know trump and have more than likely worked with him before
Basically we know who we're getting into bed with by voting trump
Reducing carbon emissions. It's not that hard.
Of course at this point we're still going to be fucked by climate change no matter what we do, but that's no excuse to say "fuck it. let's make it as bad as possible!"
Republicans tend to provide oil companies subsidies more than dems and dems tend to invest more in renewable energy. I'm not even a dem, but I'm just telling you that Republicans are pretty objectively worse for the environment than Democrats are and that simple funding isn't the only metric you should go by in terms of scientific support. Some science is more valuable than other.
and to add to my answer >>5200150 china is the #1 carbon emitter on the planet, so reducing it would require a deal we can't afford or a war that a dem wouldn't start
printing a poster asking people to walk and stop cutting their grass so much is a waste of money. call me simple, but i'm intelligent enough to know i'm not smart enough to come up with a solution to a problem i don't understand. are you?
lol. anyway i'm the person you're arguing with and I know I should just stop arguing because you clearly know more about this specific issue than i do.
i'm voting republican and i don't really care about all of that. i'll buy the products you think dems are funding when they get here
I mean, I guess he's a good politician right now, because he's winning. But he inspires no confidence in me at all. His speeches make him seem incompetent, because his only response to issues is to "be strong". I kinda wish he were an inspiring orator so I could be swept up in the nationalistic fervor with the rest of the aggrieved shrinking white majority, but he doesn't even have that going for him. He's just a doofus.
>Ms. Clinton, how would your term as president not be a third term for Obama?
>Clinton: I'm a woman
>*thunderous applause from dem audience*
>Clinton: It would be different.
This is politics. It's all about making sure to use the right words, whether they have any real meaning or not, to get votes. Politicians have been doing it long before the great grandfathers of the founding fathers were born
i don't think he's that bad. i'd rather have trump talking for 1 minute about nothing than old white guy #5 talking about the same shit all politicians talk about
trump's campaign promises are pretty simple:
>reduce illegal immigrant numbers
>negotiate better trade agreements than the TPP
>increase job availability
and all of those are reasonable goals for a four year term
go back to watching MSNBC about how much you're being oppressed
democrats ruin economies by creating stupid government programs of which most fail miserably. they also are less willing to work across the aisle, which is a fundamental part of the checks and balances in our democracy. without that, absolutely stupid trade agreements get signed behind closed doors
to me democrats are those kids who promise chocolate milk in the drinking fountains when running for school president. sounds great, but it ain't gonna happen
Holy shit, this much retard.
>>go back to watching MSNBC about how much you're being oppressed
>>democrats ruin economies by creating stupid government programs of which most fail miserably.
Unions, Interstate System, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare (yes it has worked, compare before and after, you ignorant fuck), etc.
>>they also are less willing to work across the aisle
Are you fucking kidding me? The republican leaders were fucking directly quoted in Dec. 2009 saying that they were going to sabotage and refuse absolutely fucking everything Obama would do. Which they've done. The teatards are republican voters.
>>absolutely stupid trade agreements get signed behind closed doors
Mostly true, but which members of Congress are most likely to support TPP
Holy shit, you are dumb.
Christ, I miss Goldwater, at least I could respect that cunt. Unlike the modern crop of republitards.
>Welfare (yes it has worked, compare before and after, you ignorant fuck)
>mfw the poverty rate has stagnated since the 60s
war on poverty works just as well as the war on drugs, libshit
I'm passing by this board for the first time (not even part of you people) and I like you. I plan on saving all the money I can for transhumanism and cybernetic augmentations, potentially cryonics to wake up in the future, if it's anything remotely close to technoutopia with the golden dawn of space colonization and sentient AI
Out of fairness, the healthcare was already shit but it's a little bit better now. The repubs were the ones who wanted to keep the insurance company's pockets stuffed with cash so that's why Obama went with the moderate option of the ACA. Not a complete fix, since we'll still be throwing billions down the drain in administrative cost, but it's better than where we were.
The TPP can not pass. LGBT rights can be built on slowly over the course of decades but only Bernie and Trump are against the trade agreement that would destroy America as we know it. Since the jews have already chosen Hillary as their chosen one, it's possible Trump could be what America needs to shut it down.
Trump or Carson 2016!!!
>Laughing at all the one issue voters ITT
Yall motherfuckers need to quit letting your sexuality define your life.
The ACA is a law written by the Health Insurance companies. It was written as an alternative to government paid for health care. Which was brought up by SHillary Clinton when she was First Lady. She wanted the government to run a health insurance company as a public option to private health insurance. So the Insurance companies wrote the ACA. Giving some token reforms in exchange for secured profits from everyone being forced to buy insurance, some times with government subsidies. The health insurance companies then gave it to extremely conservative Heritage Foundation. They presented it to the GOP controlled Congress. That Congress rejected it out right. They were right for doing so too.