POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[SeventhSandwich]

(we brought them over)

I was hesitant to list that, considering that slavery and voluntary immigration are two different things.

Probably doesn't work as a perfect brown townogy, but the other cases are fine examples. The Catholics also received a very similar response to that of modern-day Muslims. Look up 'anti-catholic nativism' on google images and there's literally hundreds of historical posters.

[Ad Bot]

[Ipquarx]

>liberals
>seizing the means of production

??????????????????? you know socialists use the term "liberal" derisively right? liberals are center/center-left

psst it's sarcasm

[Poliwhirl]

Because the man has no idea how to pay for his social programs and just circlejerks about how he would "Tax the 1%!" but taxing the 1% isn't going to create the 18 trillion dollars that would be required to pay for Sanders' social programs for a decade, or about 1.8 trillion dollars per annum on top of the 4 trillion the United States already spends every year.

he literally has the exact specifications of how much his programs will cost and how he will pay for them righthere, but alright. where's the evidence that blows rhis out of the water, exactly?

The man literally is the antithesis of the precedent set by the architects of the constitution; the United States became prosperous on the principle of limited federal government acting mostly as a liaison between the more influential localized state governments. Increased personal freedom and responsibility mostly devoid of government interference is what drove the US economy and allowed individuals to protect the economic and social interests and inalienable rights of themselves, their families, and their neighbors.

yeah thank god our serving president doesn't hate the constitution or something, unlike that commie bernie. government control isnt necessarily a bad thing if the people themselves control the government, rather than the elites.

He's extremely inconsistent; as you saw with the firing of Comey, he had previously called for his resignation for being terrible, and then when Annoying Orange fires him for being terrible, he does a total 180 and attacks Annoying Orange for supposedly getting Comey off his case for Russia. Granted, Comey's firing has ignited a whole web of inconsistency across party platforms, which pisses me the forget off. Still, can't forget that little gem.

you're basing this assumption off a tweet that wasnt written by him, not to mention how firing someone while they are investigating you is entirely different than urging someone to step down when nothing is happening

Oh, and let's not forget, he champions the 99% and then during a debate attacks a small business owner for not being able to pay for Obamacare. Doesn't help that the guy has three mansions.

not sure what specifically you're referring to, but the only thing i could find was bernie saying that he thinks you should provide your employees with healthcare even if you are a small business, and you shouldnt avoid that just to make more money. there's nothing unreasonable about expecting employers to treat their employees well, though ideally obamacare would be reformed and not replaced with horse stuff to make the business owner have less problems in that regard.

People like Poli, however, look at the problems and assume that the problem is capitalism, so the solution is to rip the whole system apart and try something new. That's despite all the good capitalism has done, considering we rose from nothing and became one of the most developed and powerful countries in the world. That's also despite how many times socialism has been implemented in countries and has failed, ruining the economy/job market, and how it's edgier brother communism ensures that there is NO class movement at all, and basically traps everyone on the bottom rung.

if "transitioning into a social democracy controlled by the people and not the elites" is what you call "ripping up capitalism", then hell yeah.
also, "all the good capitalism has done"? really? what exactly are these good things? the way america "rose from nothing" into greatness was by profiting off of wars and conflicts like ww1, and being the only remaining country that wasn't in debt after the war purely because we sold a good amount of the equipment used in the war. and yeah, all those goods that kickstarted the american economy were produced on the backs of the workers who created them, the workers who were then given peanuts in exchange for creating an industrial and military superpower. to put it in your words, the government got all the benefits while the workers got the shaft.

oh and let me guess, you think capitalism and it's amazing competitive nature is the most efficient way to encourage innovation and change, right? despite the fact that it is this very nature that leads to companies withholding pragmatic steps forward in technology (apple in general is a great example), despite the fact that the only innovations that arise are ones that can be profitied on?
think, for a second, how much more progress would be made if society as a whole could have access to the education and means of production necessary to breed creative, new innovations, innovations created because they not only benefit the individual's life, but everybody else's as well. there exists the motivation to innovate more efficiently than capitalism would allow, and there also inherently exists the means by which these innovations could be created.

for every country socialism has failed in, there exists a country whose wealth is not insignificant compared to the US, and whose prosperity and overall quality of life definitely gives us a run for our money. at its core, allowing every individual to achieve greatness and contribute to society works better for developed countries than 1% of the population controlling the near entirety of our wealth while 50 million other citizens have to beg for scraps or starve.

[Red Spy]

[beachbum111111]

It's like a commie version of Master Mathew

[SeventhSandwich]

I think more research should be done into how socializing healthcare would affect general economic productivity. Having less sick people should ideally result in more workers, older retirees, and thus more economic productivity.

Plus, you would imagine that if people are actually using their healthcare instead of waiting to get really sick, then there should be a higher demand for doctors, nurses, and other kinds of healthcare workers. Means more jobs, including lots of jobs that don't even require higher education degrees.

[Red Spy]

than 1% of the population controlling the near entirety of our wealth

I don't know how much paint you ate as a child but what do you propose? Mass theft? A televised execution in Time Square?

[Poliwhirl]

I don't know how much paint you ate as a child but what do you propose? Mass theft? A televised execution in Time Square?

let the workers have access to the wealth they create, rather than funnel it all into some CEO. simple as that.

[SeventhSandwich]

I don't know how much paint you ate as a child but what do you propose? Mass theft? A televised execution in Time Square?

I mean, having massive wealth inequality is symptomatic of market failures. When there is well-enough money in society to keep people housed and healthy, but they aren't, that's a failure of the system. But in fairness, I don't think the solution is to tax the wealthy to death. Perhaps we should focus initially on making it so the wealthy don't cheat on their taxes as much as they do currently?

[beachbum111111]

I mean, having massive wealth inequality is symptomatic of market failures. When there is well-enough money in society to keep people housed and healthy, but they aren't, that's a failure of the system. But in fairness, I don't think the solution is to tax the wealthy to death. Perhaps we should focus initially on making it so the wealthy don't cheat on their taxes as much as they do currently?

So like a flat tax with no loopholes?

[Poliwhirl]

I mean, having massive wealth inequality is symptomatic of market failures. When there is well-enough money in society to keep people housed and healthy, but they aren't, that's a failure of the system. But in fairness, I don't think the solution is to tax the wealthy to death. Perhaps we should focus initially on making it so the wealthy don't cheat on their taxes as much as they do currently?

its a step in the right direction, but further socialization is near inevitable once that step is taken and, at that point, probably for the best

[Tezuni 2.0]

socializing healthcare.  
it's a difficult ethical dilemma when you consider that toll it takes on a person and especially so for a working class person's income and their ability to survive and more so, to take care of their families.  

you are essentially becoming a part time slave to strangers.  
do they genuinely deserve help or are they lazy freeloaders and gaming the system while you bust your ass?

even if they do genuinely deserve help, are you morally obligated to provide it?
the way I see it, the world started out as everyone for themselves  -- in a state of nature or anarchy -- and it still is.
it would always lead to the re-forming of power groups even if we suddenly reverted to pure anarchy right now

you could rebel in countries where socialized healthcare is the law, but you will face the forces of their law enforcement
countries are just groups of people like tribes and bands, and they war and they apply their forces to attain their ends

so back to the point, i think we are not obligated morally but it doesnt matter because in the end force will prevail

[SeventhSandwich]

So like a flat tax with no loopholes?

I'm still not entirely decided on how taxes ought to work. I've heard of some economics research suggesting that we would be better off removing highly-complicated progressive taxes in favor of flatter taxes that have less loopholes and get the same amount of revenue.

But there absolutely shouldn't just be tax cuts all across the board. We tried that with Reagan under the theory that prosperity in the upper class would trickle down to the lower and middle classes. It provably didn't.

you are essentially becoming a part time slave to strangers. 
do they genuinely deserve help or are they lazy freeloaders and gaming the system while you bust your ass?

I'm aware of the fact that if we put in socialized healthcare, we would have a minority of people who contribute nothing to society yet are supported by our healthcare. But I do think it would be a small minority, and it would largely be better for everyone else.

[Red Spy]

let the workers have access to the wealth they create, rather than funnel it all into some CEO. simple as that.

The owner is the one taking the market risk though. Did you give a stuff about your job at Pizza Hut beyond the paycheck?

[Tactical Nuke]

you're basing this assumption off a tweet that wasnt written by him,

want video

not to mention how firing someone while they are investigating you is entirely different than urging someone to step down when nothing is happening

except he called for the resignation when Comey had reopened the case on Hillary
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

not sure what specifically you're referring to,

https://youtu.be/Bapp45Vx0UE?t=2117

"evil 1%" for you, peeps

but the only thing i could find was bernie saying that he thinks you should provide your employees with healthcare even if you are a small business, and you shouldnt avoid that just to make more money. there's nothing unreasonable about expecting employers to treat their employees well, though ideally obamacare would be reformed and not replaced with horse stuff to make the business owner have less problems in that regard.

disregarding the fact that you buy healthcare for yourself and not for other people, Sanders didn't even ask the woman her income or the income of the business, or what her profit margins were, never mind that she couldn't even pay for healthcare on an individual basis

also, what's worse? a ton of people employed who, IDK, don't necessarily have good healthcare but eh, or a few people employed with "really good healthcare" and the rest of the group jobless and broke?

if "transitioning into a social democracy controlled by the people and not the elites" is what you call "ripping up capitalism", then hell yeah.

what the forget are you talking about

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

that's the definition of socialism, not "social democracy"

also, "all the good capitalism has done"? really? what exactly are these good things? the way america "rose from nothing" into greatness was by profiting off of wars and conflicts like ww1, and being the only remaining country that wasn't in debt after the war purely because we sold a good amount of the equipment used in the war. and yeah, all those goods that kickstarted the american economy were produced on the backs of the workers who created them, the workers who were then given peanuts in exchange for creating an industrial and military superpower. to put it in your words, the government got all the benefits while the workers got the shaft.

you realize the great depression ended when the US started mass production of equipment for WWII right
and that by proxy the economic heaven that was the 50s would not exist otherwise, right
right
RIGHT

oh and btw the workers were working for their family and friends fighting during the war not for the government's "mischievous and devious purposes"

oh and let me guess, you think capitalism and it's amazing competitive nature is the most efficient way to encourage innovation and change, right?

yes

hate to burst your bubble but innovation is fueled by the rich
because initial concepts and prototypes for innovations are so expensive as a matter of fact, the only people that can buy and test them are the rich
not to mention the rich can fund projects they like or that they think will help society

what innovation have you seen in communist countries like Russia as opposed to America? relatively none

despite the fact that it is this very nature that leads to companies withholding pragmatic steps
forward in technology (apple in general is a great example),

companies will literally loving pay engineers to take apart other companies' products and brown townyze them so that those technologies can be used in their products

as an engineering student, I know what I'm talking about
you can't "keep secrets" from people, we will find it the forget out

despite the fact that the only innovations that arise are ones that can be profitied on?

objectively false

think, for a second, how much more progress would be made if society as a whole could have access to the education and means of production necessary to breed creative, new innovations, innovations created because they not only benefit the individual's life, but everybody else's as well. there exists the motivation to innovate more efficiently than capitalism would allow, and there also inherently exists the means by which these innovations could be created.

I thought about it for a literal second and then ditched it for the model that's worked successfully for centuries
sorry

for every country socialism has failed in, there exists a country whose wealth is not insignificant compared to the US, and whose prosperity and overall quality of life definitely gives us a run for our money. at its core, allowing every individual to achieve greatness and contribute to society works better for developed countries than 1% of the population controlling the near entirety of our wealth while 50 million other citizens have to beg for scraps or starve.

can you point me to those countries because when I look at Europe I see companies and industry leaving en masse and when I look south I see society collapsing

let the workers have access to the wealth they create, rather than funnel it all into some CEO. simple as that.

better yet, let's put the common worker into a multinational corporation's leading position and grab the popcorn