Gee, who could have predicted...

[easyt65]

...libs would lose their ******* minds, call for the overthrow of the govt, call for the racist murders of whites, burn the American flag, and call for the assassination of the President - after demanding the GOP accept the outcome of the election - because they LOST and did not get their way?!

Actually, the question should be who DIDN'T see this coming?!

What happened to your prediction that Trump would win 400 electoral votes?

Do you EVER stop making shite up?

Doesn't matter....Trump is still the new President, & Hillary is one step closer to going to jail.

 

[Crixus]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

You are a ******* cry baby.

Wow, insults.

Not really. I would bet a ton libs hated the EC when Bambams won huh? Clinton to? Bet if one searched past elections where their side lost the losing side wanted to do away with the EC. Sorry, it's bad enough as is, can't imagine how fucked it would be if California and New York got to decide who the president is.

Not really? What would you call hurling insults are people from behind a computer screen then?

I couldn't care less whether a ton of liberals did this, that or the other. I happen not to weigh a ton, therefore I am not a ton of liberals. I'd ask who the hell you think you're talking to when you reply to me, I am only one person and not all liberals.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time debating the person you're replying to, rather than some ghost you invented, you might not find the need to hurl insults so much, and actually develop an argument.

Now its just gay. As for who I think i am talking to, I dint ******* care. If you hate it do one of two or doth things. Dont whine about shit, or if you do dont lie, or use your ignore feature. As for debating people, no use if all they are doing is crying on their pillow. Better to make fun of them as im not the hugging type.

 

[Correll]

People often look for what they think the last president didn't have. Bush W. wasn't Clinton's messing around with women, Obama wasn't the not so bright guy, and Trump isn't the straight faced politician. It feels like it's always just going to be based on something that is ridiculous, rather than on whether they can do the job or not.

No, the celebs often don't get there because of their policies, they get there because the people want to be entertained, the wet themselves around famous people, and all other kinds of idiocies.

The problem with looking for the strong man is that sometimes strong isn't the best policy. You might think Obama is a wimp, personally I'm glad he spent the last 8 years trying (and sometimes failing miserably) to keep the US away from making a common enemy out of Muslims.

What Dubya did was not right, and it's caused so many problems, so much friction into a world that doesn't need any more. The more advanced we get as a species, surely the less we need to go making problems. But it would seem that the right revel in it, and it's their way of making sure politics fits their ideals, rather than the other way around.

I'm hoping that Trump is going to pull back and not make Muslims the enemy. Hitler did it with Jews, he got his way, Milosevic did it with the Kosovan Albanians, and the Croats and the rest, and these are only two examples among many. People just want to live life.

People vote for entertainers because they are familiar with them; like an old family friend sort of speak. If Hil-Liar didn't have a reputation, she would have never made it out of the primaries. But she's Bill's wife and that's all she needed.

Trump is the only person that was entertaining out of any celebrity. Arnold wasn't funny or entertaining as Governor. Ventura wasn't body slamming state representatives. Franklin wasn't telling jokes. Sonny never sang a song to Congress.

A familiar face is one that you're comfortable with. In a way, you feel like you know them personally. So when people go out to vote, they vote for celebrities regardless of policies or party.

I think you are both being unfair to people who vote for celebrities.

Celebrities have name recognition. That gets them their Voice to be HEard.

They tend to be comfortable talking in front of large audiences, and with TV. Two much needed skills.


They tend to be rich, and to have rich friends.


My understanding is that Arnold ran a good campaign with decent issues.

Why am I being unfair? Firstly, I'm not attacking the celebrities, they're just making the most of what they have. I'm attacking the mindless people who vote for them simply because they're famous.

So, Arnold had some decent issues. Sure, then again Reagan didn't have any, Trump had even less....

FIrst of all, I specifically said, those who vote for celebrities.


Your assumption that they are voting for the celebrities based just on their fame is unsupported and unlikely. and unfair.


Fame gets you the first step, ie a listen.


If what you have to say is more of the same old crap, not many people are going to be trilled by that.


Trump had fame to get his listen. But he was very careful to make sure that those that listened heard something that would get him a second listen,

He did not win because he was a Reality TV Star.


He won because he identified a large group of voters that had been forgotten and were desperate for their concerns to be voiced by someone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Solutions to the problems.

1) EDUCATION.
Kids go to school, and yet what do they learn? Do they learn how to be decent human beings? How to cook food properly? How to eat healthily? How to learn? How to use their brains? How to bring up children? How to be a good spouse?

No, the right spends a lot of effort saying that this is stuff that shouldn't be taught. Apparently we're supposed to just know this stuff. However even parents who are conscientious struggle to bring up kids as they would like. The right also encourages making money above all else, so, work 60 hours a week, then bitches and moans that the family structure is falling apart.

Do you see the problem here. Govt isn't helping, it's doing the contrary, it's causing problems in society and mostly this is right wing ideology at work. Trump wants to make more money, he wants to screw the environment, he won't deal with social issues, and nor will Congress. For the next 2 years at least nothing will be done. Kids will turn into adults and fumble around and make the same mistakes over and over, and then the right will say "It's up to individuals to solve this problem", yet we know they can't.

Okay, for one, the US spends more money per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the entire world, and we have little to show for it, so money is obviously not the problem. But if you wish to contend that it is, then maybe it's not the money, and it's the unions that keep bad teachers in school.

Secondly, when it comes to education, it's a family effort and not just the schools. But because leftists have promoted single-parent households for decades now, parents are not involved with their children's education. Their involvement stops after they shoo them onto to school bus. That's where the failure is.

I live in a black neighborhood, and statistically, over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. My former neighbor used to have a portable basketball hoop set up in his backyard. Kids from everywhere came here to play. They came here right after school and played well past dark. Okay, so where are the parents here? Why are their kids playing basketball instead of doing homework or preparing for the next day in school. Yeah, but money is the problem.....

Now you said something I find quite striking, and that is the government is helping the wealthy.

So I want to use a scenario here. Let's say you lived next door to me, and when you went out for your evening walk, I would go into your home and steal $100.00. I did this every single week. But after a while, I felt guilty, so I decide to only steal $75.00 a week from you instead. By doing so, did I just give you $25.00 a week?

The government is not giving the wealthy anything by taking less from them. It's their money to begin with. So how is taking less of THEIR money giving them anything?

This whole notion that all money belongs to government first, and whatever they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us is what's most disturbing about the liberal philosophy. It's just like you said about what companies pay people. They are not getting rich from the poor because the poor have no money to begin with. They are giving them jobs albeit low paying jobs, but better than no job at all.

Spending money on education doesn't equate to teaching the right things. It doesn't equate to directing the money in the right way or manner. How much just goes on paying for teachers and nothing else?

Yes, I'd say the Teaching Unions in the US are a major problem, just one of many major problems.

Yes, it is a family effort, and not just the schools. However when parents are encouraged to go out and work 60 hours a week, how much time do they have for this family effort?

How can you encourage too much work and then say it's all down to the family? That's right wing policy in many areas of the country. Is it going to work? Hell no. But they compartmentalize all that they say, and so they will avoid having to deal with the contradiction.

Poor parents, like maybe you live in a poor area if there is a 70% born out of wedlock statistic going on, they need to earn money. They're not earning enough to bring up their kids, there's only one of them in the family, again, where are they? Probably at work, if they're lucky and didn't lose their job.

But kids are growing up with this, and they'll pass this onto their kids. You start with such destruction of the family, and it keeps rolling UNLESS you do something about it. And the right won't do anything about it, the left might try to do something about it, but maybe it's not the right thing. The problems keep mounting. The underlying factor in all of this is the unwillingness to tackle the problems, by saying "everyone can make it in America" and "it's up to the family to solve the problems". Again, we're back to education. And then we're back to the right saying that it's all "indoctrination" if you teach anything other than "Jesus is you're best buddy".

I don't get your scenario.

I'll change your scenario to fit the topic we're discussing from my point of view.

You work for a company and they provide free meals. You lose your job, should you then still get those free meals? No,the meals weren't free, you had to work for them.

Rich companies pay taxes. Most people pay taxes? Why?

Infrastructure.
Security
Stability
Many services are provided.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost dead. So there was no security. Rich people had to pay something like 30% of their income to a mafia to protect them, and even then their mafia might not be as good as another person's mafia. So what?

Large corporations aren't paying 30%, they're paying far, far less than this. In fact they're also being given money. They use a lot of the infrastructure, they make the most of the the military and foreign meddling by the US govt. How many US shareholders have made a ton of money because the US went to war in Iraq? Look at Halliburton, Shell, BP, all these companies which are international companies regardless of their base, and have many US shareholders. They're making money, from the lives of US servicemen and women, from the limbs of US servicemen and women, and from the tax dollars spent on the war.

To change your scenario, it's like I go out every evening, you take $100 a night, and yet I go round to your house every morning and I take your car for a spin, I use your internet, I use your phone, I eat your food, I do all of this. Are you stealing my money? Sure, because you didn't ask. Taking taxes isn't stealing, they asked, and you gave.

Oh please! They asked--you gave? When did government ever "ask" for taxes? They demand them and if you don't give them your money, you'll find yourself at the IRS office, in court, and even in prison in some cases.

Companies don't use social services as much as the general public. Companies do not get food stamps, medicaid, HUD, Social Security, and so on. Companies pay ten times or more what the general public pays and either gets the same or less government services. They are paying more than their fair share.

The federal government was not designed to help people with their personal problems. If you had kids you can't afford, buy things you can't afford, or get into debt because of money spent on unnecessary things, why should that be the publics problem? It's real simple: if you can't afford to have children, then don't have them!

If you encourage irresponsibility like our federal government has, then don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

You are a ******* cry baby.

Wow, insults.

Not really. I would bet a ton libs hated the EC when Bambams won huh? Clinton to? Bet if one searched past elections where their side lost the losing side wanted to do away with the EC. Sorry, it's bad enough as is, can't imagine how fucked it would be if California and New York got to decide who the president is.

Not really? What would you call hurling insults are people from behind a computer screen then?

I couldn't care less whether a ton of liberals did this, that or the other. I happen not to weigh a ton, therefore I am not a ton of liberals. I'd ask who the hell you think you're talking to when you reply to me, I am only one person and not all liberals.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time debating the person you're replying to, rather than some ghost you invented, you might not find the need to hurl insults so much, and actually develop an argument.

Now its just gay. As for who I think i am talking to, I dint ******* care. If you hate it do one of two or doth things. Dont whine about shit, or if you do dont lie, or use your ignore feature. As for debating people, no use if all they are doing is crying on their pillow. Better to make fun of them as im not the hugging type.

I have no idea what you're saying. Try English.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People often look for what they think the last president didn't have. Bush W. wasn't Clinton's messing around with women, Obama wasn't the not so bright guy, and Trump isn't the straight faced politician. It feels like it's always just going to be based on something that is ridiculous, rather than on whether they can do the job or not.

No, the celebs often don't get there because of their policies, they get there because the people want to be entertained, the wet themselves around famous people, and all other kinds of idiocies.

The problem with looking for the strong man is that sometimes strong isn't the best policy. You might think Obama is a wimp, personally I'm glad he spent the last 8 years trying (and sometimes failing miserably) to keep the US away from making a common enemy out of Muslims.

What Dubya did was not right, and it's caused so many problems, so much friction into a world that doesn't need any more. The more advanced we get as a species, surely the less we need to go making problems. But it would seem that the right revel in it, and it's their way of making sure politics fits their ideals, rather than the other way around.

I'm hoping that Trump is going to pull back and not make Muslims the enemy. Hitler did it with Jews, he got his way, Milosevic did it with the Kosovan Albanians, and the Croats and the rest, and these are only two examples among many. People just want to live life.

People vote for entertainers because they are familiar with them; like an old family friend sort of speak. If Hil-Liar didn't have a reputation, she would have never made it out of the primaries. But she's Bill's wife and that's all she needed.

Trump is the only person that was entertaining out of any celebrity. Arnold wasn't funny or entertaining as Governor. Ventura wasn't body slamming state representatives. Franklin wasn't telling jokes. Sonny never sang a song to Congress.

A familiar face is one that you're comfortable with. In a way, you feel like you know them personally. So when people go out to vote, they vote for celebrities regardless of policies or party.

I think you are both being unfair to people who vote for celebrities.

Celebrities have name recognition. That gets them their Voice to be HEard.

They tend to be comfortable talking in front of large audiences, and with TV. Two much needed skills.


They tend to be rich, and to have rich friends.


My understanding is that Arnold ran a good campaign with decent issues.

Why am I being unfair? Firstly, I'm not attacking the celebrities, they're just making the most of what they have. I'm attacking the mindless people who vote for them simply because they're famous.

So, Arnold had some decent issues. Sure, then again Reagan didn't have any, Trump had even less....

FIrst of all, I specifically said, those who vote for celebrities.


Your assumption that they are voting for the celebrities based just on their fame is unsupported and unlikely. and unfair.


Fame gets you the first step, ie a listen.


If what you have to say is more of the same old crap, not many people are going to be trilled by that.


Trump had fame to get his listen. But he was very careful to make sure that those that listened heard something that would get him a second listen,

He did not win because he was a Reality TV Star.


He won because he identified a large group of voters that had been forgotten and were desperate for their concerns to be voiced by someone.

First of all, just because you said something, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Second of all, your assumption that I made an assumption is wrong.

Third, if you think what I have to say is the same old crap, then don't read it. I write what I think.

Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?

 

[Crixus]

You are a ******* cry baby.

Wow, insults.

Not really. I would bet a ton libs hated the EC when Bambams won huh? Clinton to? Bet if one searched past elections where their side lost the losing side wanted to do away with the EC. Sorry, it's bad enough as is, can't imagine how fucked it would be if California and New York got to decide who the president is.

Not really? What would you call hurling insults are people from behind a computer screen then?

I couldn't care less whether a ton of liberals did this, that or the other. I happen not to weigh a ton, therefore I am not a ton of liberals. I'd ask who the hell you think you're talking to when you reply to me, I am only one person and not all liberals.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time debating the person you're replying to, rather than some ghost you invented, you might not find the need to hurl insults so much, and actually develop an argument.

Now its just gay. As for who I think i am talking to, I dint ******* care. If you hate it do one of two or doth things. Dont whine about shit, or if you do dont lie, or use your ignore feature. As for debating people, no use if all they are doing is crying on their pillow. Better to make fun of them as im not the hugging type.

I have no idea what you're saying. Try English.

You libs only speak cup cake. English wont help. Go find a safe place to be happy in. The next 4 years are going to kind of suck for you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Solutions to the problems.

1) EDUCATION.
Kids go to school, and yet what do they learn? Do they learn how to be decent human beings? How to cook food properly? How to eat healthily? How to learn? How to use their brains? How to bring up children? How to be a good spouse?

No, the right spends a lot of effort saying that this is stuff that shouldn't be taught. Apparently we're supposed to just know this stuff. However even parents who are conscientious struggle to bring up kids as they would like. The right also encourages making money above all else, so, work 60 hours a week, then bitches and moans that the family structure is falling apart.

Do you see the problem here. Govt isn't helping, it's doing the contrary, it's causing problems in society and mostly this is right wing ideology at work. Trump wants to make more money, he wants to screw the environment, he won't deal with social issues, and nor will Congress. For the next 2 years at least nothing will be done. Kids will turn into adults and fumble around and make the same mistakes over and over, and then the right will say "It's up to individuals to solve this problem", yet we know they can't.

Okay, for one, the US spends more money per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the entire world, and we have little to show for it, so money is obviously not the problem. But if you wish to contend that it is, then maybe it's not the money, and it's the unions that keep bad teachers in school.

Secondly, when it comes to education, it's a family effort and not just the schools. But because leftists have promoted single-parent households for decades now, parents are not involved with their children's education. Their involvement stops after they shoo them onto to school bus. That's where the failure is.

I live in a black neighborhood, and statistically, over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. My former neighbor used to have a portable basketball hoop set up in his backyard. Kids from everywhere came here to play. They came here right after school and played well past dark. Okay, so where are the parents here? Why are their kids playing basketball instead of doing homework or preparing for the next day in school. Yeah, but money is the problem.....

Now you said something I find quite striking, and that is the government is helping the wealthy.

So I want to use a scenario here. Let's say you lived next door to me, and when you went out for your evening walk, I would go into your home and steal $100.00. I did this every single week. But after a while, I felt guilty, so I decide to only steal $75.00 a week from you instead. By doing so, did I just give you $25.00 a week?

The government is not giving the wealthy anything by taking less from them. It's their money to begin with. So how is taking less of THEIR money giving them anything?

This whole notion that all money belongs to government first, and whatever they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us is what's most disturbing about the liberal philosophy. It's just like you said about what companies pay people. They are not getting rich from the poor because the poor have no money to begin with. They are giving them jobs albeit low paying jobs, but better than no job at all.

Spending money on education doesn't equate to teaching the right things. It doesn't equate to directing the money in the right way or manner. How much just goes on paying for teachers and nothing else?

Yes, I'd say the Teaching Unions in the US are a major problem, just one of many major problems.

Yes, it is a family effort, and not just the schools. However when parents are encouraged to go out and work 60 hours a week, how much time do they have for this family effort?

How can you encourage too much work and then say it's all down to the family? That's right wing policy in many areas of the country. Is it going to work? Hell no. But they compartmentalize all that they say, and so they will avoid having to deal with the contradiction.

Poor parents, like maybe you live in a poor area if there is a 70% born out of wedlock statistic going on, they need to earn money. They're not earning enough to bring up their kids, there's only one of them in the family, again, where are they? Probably at work, if they're lucky and didn't lose their job.

But kids are growing up with this, and they'll pass this onto their kids. You start with such destruction of the family, and it keeps rolling UNLESS you do something about it. And the right won't do anything about it, the left might try to do something about it, but maybe it's not the right thing. The problems keep mounting. The underlying factor in all of this is the unwillingness to tackle the problems, by saying "everyone can make it in America" and "it's up to the family to solve the problems". Again, we're back to education. And then we're back to the right saying that it's all "indoctrination" if you teach anything other than "Jesus is you're best buddy".

I don't get your scenario.

I'll change your scenario to fit the topic we're discussing from my point of view.

You work for a company and they provide free meals. You lose your job, should you then still get those free meals? No,the meals weren't free, you had to work for them.

Rich companies pay taxes. Most people pay taxes? Why?

Infrastructure.
Security
Stability
Many services are provided.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost dead. So there was no security. Rich people had to pay something like 30% of their income to a mafia to protect them, and even then their mafia might not be as good as another person's mafia. So what?

Large corporations aren't paying 30%, they're paying far, far less than this. In fact they're also being given money. They use a lot of the infrastructure, they make the most of the the military and foreign meddling by the US govt. How many US shareholders have made a ton of money because the US went to war in Iraq? Look at Halliburton, Shell, BP, all these companies which are international companies regardless of their base, and have many US shareholders. They're making money, from the lives of US servicemen and women, from the limbs of US servicemen and women, and from the tax dollars spent on the war.

To change your scenario, it's like I go out every evening, you take $100 a night, and yet I go round to your house every morning and I take your car for a spin, I use your internet, I use your phone, I eat your food, I do all of this. Are you stealing my money? Sure, because you didn't ask. Taking taxes isn't stealing, they asked, and you gave.

Oh please! They asked--you gave? When did government ever "ask" for taxes? They demand them and if you don't give them your money, you'll find yourself at the IRS office, in court, and even in prison in some cases.

Companies don't use social services as much as the general public. Companies do not get food stamps, medicaid, HUD, Social Security, and so on. Companies pay ten times or more what the general public pays and either gets the same or less government services. They are paying more than their fair share.

The federal government was not designed to help people with their personal problems. If you had kids you can't afford, buy things you can't afford, or get into debt because of money spent on unnecessary things, why should that be the publics problem? It's real simple: if you can't afford to have children, then don't have them!

If you encourage irresponsibility like our federal government has, then don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

When did they ever ask? Well every time. You could choose not to pay them, then they demand and cause you problems. You can look at it however you want, it makes no difference. You make a social contract with the society you live in, you could leave, you choose not to, so you pay taxes. You pay taxes to use the stuff around you. Do you not use the roads?

No, companies don't use food stamps. But they use airports, they use roads, they use rail, and most of all, they use the security. Look at Somalia. No govt. Wow, right wing heaven, must be people making money all over the place.... hang on a minute, they're not. Somalia is much poorer than the US. Why's that?
Also some use the military. They use the World Bank (**** the World Bank).

Bolivia is a perfect example. The World Bank went to Bolivia and said "hey, we'll lend you money but you have to privatize your essential industries",

The Politics of Water in Bolivia

" Etched deeply into the granite walls just inside the entrance of the World Bank headquarters in Washington are the words, "Our dream, a world free of poverty.""

This, by the way, is complete bullshit.

In Bolivia they privatized the water industry. Private companies bought the water industry, not Bolivian companies. Why? Well foreign companies have more money, hence why the World Bank wants them to open up to privatization. Makes foreign companies rich.

https://www.citizen.org/documents/Bolivia_(PDF).PDF

"
In February and March of 2000, protests broke out in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in response to the skyrocketing price of water. Many people saw their bills triple or even quadruple,"

Makes the local people poor.

"
For thousands of families, the rate hike meant up to half of their monthly income went to paying for water."

In La Paz, the capital, 25% of people lost access to clean water.

The company that was involved in this took a Spanish name, Aguas del Tunari, but don't be fooled, this was a part of Bechtel, a US company. They make $32 billion a year (in 2015).

The same happened with the dairy industry. Large foreign companies buy up the dairy industry, pay the farmers less, charge the consumers more, take the profits out of the country. And this is supposedly how you help poverty.

Sure as hell makes US companies rich though.

No, the federal govt was not designed to help people with personal problems, things have changed since 1789 though. There are problems. The country is going downhill, the solutions are clear, the desire to enact the solutions aren't there, the US is suffering massively as a result.

I'm not talking about encouraging irresponsibility. I too believe that people should take control of their lives. However it's not happening right now, and it's not happening because in the modern world it is increasingly difficult to do so. People need skills, they need an education because they can compete. The family structure is disappearing and this is causing so many problems for kids. There's a massive inner city problem with gangs, too many people in prisons. Something isn't working.

It's your country. Do you not want to see it get better?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First of all, just because you said something, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Second of all, your assumption that I made an assumption is wrong.

Third, if you think what I have to say is the same old crap, then don't read it. I write what I think.

Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?

Given the fact that Trump supporters are basically blue collar whites, are you suggesting that we blue collar whites can be manipulated by somebody shouting nonsense?

Well.......I guess that fits right in with the basket of deplorables and people living in their moms basement. Perhaps the reason Trump won was because of these continuous putdowns by the left. If you don't agree with leftists, you are racist, sexist, homophobes, and maybe we're just about sick of these leftist labels.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wow, insults.

Not really. I would bet a ton libs hated the EC when Bambams won huh? Clinton to? Bet if one searched past elections where their side lost the losing side wanted to do away with the EC. Sorry, it's bad enough as is, can't imagine how fucked it would be if California and New York got to decide who the president is.

Not really? What would you call hurling insults are people from behind a computer screen then?

I couldn't care less whether a ton of liberals did this, that or the other. I happen not to weigh a ton, therefore I am not a ton of liberals. I'd ask who the hell you think you're talking to when you reply to me, I am only one person and not all liberals.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time debating the person you're replying to, rather than some ghost you invented, you might not find the need to hurl insults so much, and actually develop an argument.

Now its just gay. As for who I think i am talking to, I dint ******* care. If you hate it do one of two or doth things. Dont whine about shit, or if you do dont lie, or use your ignore feature. As for debating people, no use if all they are doing is crying on their pillow. Better to make fun of them as im not the hugging type.

I have no idea what you're saying. Try English.

You libs only speak cup cake. English wont help. Go find a safe place to be happy in. The next 4 years are going to kind of suck for you.

English kind of helps when you're trying to communicate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First of all, just because you said something, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Second of all, your assumption that I made an assumption is wrong.

Third, if you think what I have to say is the same old crap, then don't read it. I write what I think.

Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?

Given the fact that Trump supporters are basically blue collar whites, are you suggesting that we blue collar whites can be manipulated by somebody shouting nonsense?

Well.......I guess that fits right in with the basket of deplorables and people living in their moms basement. Perhaps the reason Trump won was because of these continuous putdowns by the left. If you don't agree with leftists, you are racist, sexist homophobes, and maybe we're just about sick of these leftist labels.

Yes, I'm suggesting blue collar workers are easily manipulated.

Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds, Burger King etc etc etc etc etc are evidence that this is the case.

Like I've said, intelligent people will often stick their head in the sand, they want to be told sweet nothings, not be told the reality.

In 1990 the Germans had their first election as a re-unified country. The left wing SPD said "It'll be a hard road ahead" the right wing CDU said "It'll be all roses". They voted for the latter, they got the former.

Some people on both sides of the "debate" will hurl insults. Trump didn't win because of putdowns, he won for other reasons. However it shows the level of politics, and this forum does too, when insults are the staple diet.

The main reason I talk about electoral reform is because there are two parties, and millions of people, you're looking at 90 to 100 million people "support" their party like they'd support a football team. They want to win no matter what. They don't care about the politics.

One day they're abusing Bill Clinton for liking sex with women. The next they're ignoring Trump liking sex with women. One day they're shouting that Hillary is a criminal. The next they're ignoring that Trump has done lots of illegal stuff.

This is the game. The game doesn't require logic, consistency, it requires shouting louder, it requires insults, it requires nonsense, and the people love it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Solutions to the problems.

1) EDUCATION.
Kids go to school, and yet what do they learn? Do they learn how to be decent human beings? How to cook food properly? How to eat healthily? How to learn? How to use their brains? How to bring up children? How to be a good spouse?

No, the right spends a lot of effort saying that this is stuff that shouldn't be taught. Apparently we're supposed to just know this stuff. However even parents who are conscientious struggle to bring up kids as they would like. The right also encourages making money above all else, so, work 60 hours a week, then bitches and moans that the family structure is falling apart.

Do you see the problem here. Govt isn't helping, it's doing the contrary, it's causing problems in society and mostly this is right wing ideology at work. Trump wants to make more money, he wants to screw the environment, he won't deal with social issues, and nor will Congress. For the next 2 years at least nothing will be done. Kids will turn into adults and fumble around and make the same mistakes over and over, and then the right will say "It's up to individuals to solve this problem", yet we know they can't.

Okay, for one, the US spends more money per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the entire world, and we have little to show for it, so money is obviously not the problem. But if you wish to contend that it is, then maybe it's not the money, and it's the unions that keep bad teachers in school.

Secondly, when it comes to education, it's a family effort and not just the schools. But because leftists have promoted single-parent households for decades now, parents are not involved with their children's education. Their involvement stops after they shoo them onto to school bus. That's where the failure is.

I live in a black neighborhood, and statistically, over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. My former neighbor used to have a portable basketball hoop set up in his backyard. Kids from everywhere came here to play. They came here right after school and played well past dark. Okay, so where are the parents here? Why are their kids playing basketball instead of doing homework or preparing for the next day in school. Yeah, but money is the problem.....

Now you said something I find quite striking, and that is the government is helping the wealthy.

So I want to use a scenario here. Let's say you lived next door to me, and when you went out for your evening walk, I would go into your home and steal $100.00. I did this every single week. But after a while, I felt guilty, so I decide to only steal $75.00 a week from you instead. By doing so, did I just give you $25.00 a week?

The government is not giving the wealthy anything by taking less from them. It's their money to begin with. So how is taking less of THEIR money giving them anything?

This whole notion that all money belongs to government first, and whatever they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us is what's most disturbing about the liberal philosophy. It's just like you said about what companies pay people. They are not getting rich from the poor because the poor have no money to begin with. They are giving them jobs albeit low paying jobs, but better than no job at all.

Spending money on education doesn't equate to teaching the right things. It doesn't equate to directing the money in the right way or manner. How much just goes on paying for teachers and nothing else?

Yes, I'd say the Teaching Unions in the US are a major problem, just one of many major problems.

Yes, it is a family effort, and not just the schools. However when parents are encouraged to go out and work 60 hours a week, how much time do they have for this family effort?

How can you encourage too much work and then say it's all down to the family? That's right wing policy in many areas of the country. Is it going to work? Hell no. But they compartmentalize all that they say, and so they will avoid having to deal with the contradiction.

Poor parents, like maybe you live in a poor area if there is a 70% born out of wedlock statistic going on, they need to earn money. They're not earning enough to bring up their kids, there's only one of them in the family, again, where are they? Probably at work, if they're lucky and didn't lose their job.

But kids are growing up with this, and they'll pass this onto their kids. You start with such destruction of the family, and it keeps rolling UNLESS you do something about it. And the right won't do anything about it, the left might try to do something about it, but maybe it's not the right thing. The problems keep mounting. The underlying factor in all of this is the unwillingness to tackle the problems, by saying "everyone can make it in America" and "it's up to the family to solve the problems". Again, we're back to education. And then we're back to the right saying that it's all "indoctrination" if you teach anything other than "Jesus is you're best buddy".

I don't get your scenario.

I'll change your scenario to fit the topic we're discussing from my point of view.

You work for a company and they provide free meals. You lose your job, should you then still get those free meals? No,the meals weren't free, you had to work for them.

Rich companies pay taxes. Most people pay taxes? Why?

Infrastructure.
Security
Stability
Many services are provided.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost dead. So there was no security. Rich people had to pay something like 30% of their income to a mafia to protect them, and even then their mafia might not be as good as another person's mafia. So what?

Large corporations aren't paying 30%, they're paying far, far less than this. In fact they're also being given money. They use a lot of the infrastructure, they make the most of the the military and foreign meddling by the US govt. How many US shareholders have made a ton of money because the US went to war in Iraq? Look at Halliburton, Shell, BP, all these companies which are international companies regardless of their base, and have many US shareholders. They're making money, from the lives of US servicemen and women, from the limbs of US servicemen and women, and from the tax dollars spent on the war.

To change your scenario, it's like I go out every evening, you take $100 a night, and yet I go round to your house every morning and I take your car for a spin, I use your internet, I use your phone, I eat your food, I do all of this. Are you stealing my money? Sure, because you didn't ask. Taking taxes isn't stealing, they asked, and you gave.

Oh please! They asked--you gave? When did government ever "ask" for taxes? They demand them and if you don't give them your money, you'll find yourself at the IRS office, in court, and even in prison in some cases.

Companies don't use social services as much as the general public. Companies do not get food stamps, medicaid, HUD, Social Security, and so on. Companies pay ten times or more what the general public pays and either gets the same or less government services. They are paying more than their fair share.

The federal government was not designed to help people with their personal problems. If you had kids you can't afford, buy things you can't afford, or get into debt because of money spent on unnecessary things, why should that be the publics problem? It's real simple: if you can't afford to have children, then don't have them!

If you encourage irresponsibility like our federal government has, then don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

When did they ever ask? Well every time. You could choose not to pay them, then they demand and cause you problems. You can look at it however you want, it makes no difference. You make a social contract with the society you live in, you could leave, you choose not to, so you pay taxes. You pay taxes to use the stuff around you. Do you not use the roads?

No, companies don't use food stamps. But they use airports, they use roads, they use rail, and most of all, they use the security. Look at Somalia. No govt. Wow, right wing heaven, must be people making money all over the place.... hang on a minute, they're not. Somalia is much poorer than the US. Why's that?
Also some use the military. They use the World Bank (**** the World Bank).

Bolivia is a perfect example. The World Bank went to Bolivia and said "hey, we'll lend you money but you have to privatize your essential industries",

The Politics of Water in Bolivia

" Etched deeply into the granite walls just inside the entrance of the World Bank headquarters in Washington are the words, "Our dream, a world free of poverty.""

This, by the way, is complete bullshit.

In Bolivia they privatized the water industry. Private companies bought the water industry, not Bolivian companies. Why? Well foreign companies have more money, hence why the World Bank wants them to open up to privatization. Makes foreign companies rich.

https://www.citizen.org/documents/Bolivia_(PDF).PDF

"
In February and March of 2000, protests broke out in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in response to the skyrocketing price of water. Many people saw their bills triple or even quadruple,"

Makes the local people poor.

"
For thousands of families, the rate hike meant up to half of their monthly income went to paying for water."

In La Paz, the capital, 25% of people lost access to clean water.

The company that was involved in this took a Spanish name, Aguas del Tunari, but don't be fooled, this was a part of Bechtel, a US company. They make $32 billion a year (in 2015).

The same happened with the dairy industry. Large foreign companies buy up the dairy industry, pay the farmers less, charge the consumers more, take the profits out of the country. And this is supposedly how you help poverty.

Sure as hell makes US companies rich though.

No, the federal govt was not designed to help people with personal problems, things have changed since 1789 though. There are problems. The country is going downhill, the solutions are clear, the desire to enact the solutions aren't there, the US is suffering massively as a result.

I'm not talking about encouraging irresponsibility. I too believe that people should take control of their lives. However it's not happening right now, and it's not happening because in the modern world it is increasingly difficult to do so. People need skills, they need an education because they can compete. The family structure is disappearing and this is causing so many problems for kids. There's a massive inner city problem with gangs, too many people in prisons. Something isn't working.

It's your country. Do you not want to see it get better?

Many of the problems you cite are because of Democrats and liberalism. It's the left that promoted single-parent households particularly the group known as N.O.W. Single parent households are the foundation of crime, poverty, lack of education, and lack of morals. It's the left that rewards people for failure and penalizes success. Have more kids, bigger welfare check, bigger SNAP's card, larger HUD home in the suburbs. Create more wealth, more taxation, less to leave to your heirs through a death tax.

What has changed since 1789 is government DID get involved in personal problem solving over time. And it still exists today by the left. Look at what they ran on! Hillary promising free college, although as we all understand, it's not free, she just wanted to make somebody else pay for it. Paid leave for men and women for any idiotic reason one could think of. Who pays for that? Free and government subsidized healthcare with ruined many lives including mine. Forced birth control and abortion coverage for employees regardless of the employers personal or religious objections. Forcing restaurants to put calorie count on the items in their menu because Americans are too stupid to figure out a double whopper with cheese combo may not keep you slim and trim.

Yes indeed, much of the leftist agenda is attempting to solve personal problems that are better left to the person and not government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, I'm suggesting blue collar workers are easily manipulated.

Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds, Burger King etc etc etc etc etc are evidence that this is the case.

Like I've said, intelligent people will often stick their head in the sand, they want to be told sweet nothings, not be told the reality.

In 1990 the Germans had their first election as a re-unified country. The left wing SPD said "It'll be a hard road ahead" the right wing CDU said "It'll be all roses". They voted for the latter, they got the former.

Some people on both sides of the "debate" will hurl insults. Trump didn't win because of putdowns, he won for other reasons. However it shows the level of politics, and this forum does too, when insults are the staple diet.

The main reason I talk about electoral reform is because there are two parties, and millions of people, you're looking at 90 to 100 million people "support" their party like they'd support a football team. They want to win no matter what. They don't care about the politics.

One day they're abusing Bill Clinton for liking sex with women. The next they're ignoring Trump liking sex with women. One day they're shouting that Hillary is a criminal. The next they're ignoring that Trump has done lots of illegal stuff.

This is the game. The game doesn't require logic, consistency, it requires shouting louder, it requires insults, it requires nonsense, and the people love it.

Utter bull. Democrats lost for a host of reasons. Trump never put our national security at risk. Trump never destroyed evidence subpoenaed by the US Congress. Trump never lied to the US Congress repeatedly under oath. Trump was never placed above the fray simply because he was a member of the political society.

Most of all Trump won because people wanted to keep Hillary as far from the White House as we could. Sure, we don't know how Trump will do as President, but we do know what Hil-Liar would have done as President. We've seen what she's done as SOS and it's quiet pathetic.

You don't really fear people embellishing their candidate like a football team because that's exactly what happened with DumBama. They loved him personally but rejected his policies. That's what brought on historic mid-term elections as well as the presidential election we just had.

 

[Crixus]

Not really. I would bet a ton libs hated the EC when Bambams won huh? Clinton to? Bet if one searched past elections where their side lost the losing side wanted to do away with the EC. Sorry, it's bad enough as is, can't imagine how fucked it would be if California and New York got to decide who the president is.

Not really? What would you call hurling insults are people from behind a computer screen then?

I couldn't care less whether a ton of liberals did this, that or the other. I happen not to weigh a ton, therefore I am not a ton of liberals. I'd ask who the hell you think you're talking to when you reply to me, I am only one person and not all liberals.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time debating the person you're replying to, rather than some ghost you invented, you might not find the need to hurl insults so much, and actually develop an argument.

Now its just gay. As for who I think i am talking to, I dint ******* care. If you hate it do one of two or doth things. Dont whine about shit, or if you do dont lie, or use your ignore feature. As for debating people, no use if all they are doing is crying on their pillow. Better to make fun of them as im not the hugging type.

I have no idea what you're saying. Try English.

You libs only speak cup cake. English wont help. Go find a safe place to be happy in. The next 4 years are going to kind of suck for you.

English kind of helps when you're trying to communicate.

yawn.

 

[Crixus]

Solutions to the problems.

1) EDUCATION.
Kids go to school, and yet what do they learn? Do they learn how to be decent human beings? How to cook food properly? How to eat healthily? How to learn? How to use their brains? How to bring up children? How to be a good spouse?

No, the right spends a lot of effort saying that this is stuff that shouldn't be taught. Apparently we're supposed to just know this stuff. However even parents who are conscientious struggle to bring up kids as they would like. The right also encourages making money above all else, so, work 60 hours a week, then bitches and moans that the family structure is falling apart.

Do you see the problem here. Govt isn't helping, it's doing the contrary, it's causing problems in society and mostly this is right wing ideology at work. Trump wants to make more money, he wants to screw the environment, he won't deal with social issues, and nor will Congress. For the next 2 years at least nothing will be done. Kids will turn into adults and fumble around and make the same mistakes over and over, and then the right will say "It's up to individuals to solve this problem", yet we know they can't.

Okay, for one, the US spends more money per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the entire world, and we have little to show for it, so money is obviously not the problem. But if you wish to contend that it is, then maybe it's not the money, and it's the unions that keep bad teachers in school.

Secondly, when it comes to education, it's a family effort and not just the schools. But because leftists have promoted single-parent households for decades now, parents are not involved with their children's education. Their involvement stops after they shoo them onto to school bus. That's where the failure is.

I live in a black neighborhood, and statistically, over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. My former neighbor used to have a portable basketball hoop set up in his backyard. Kids from everywhere came here to play. They came here right after school and played well past dark. Okay, so where are the parents here? Why are their kids playing basketball instead of doing homework or preparing for the next day in school. Yeah, but money is the problem.....

Now you said something I find quite striking, and that is the government is helping the wealthy.

So I want to use a scenario here. Let's say you lived next door to me, and when you went out for your evening walk, I would go into your home and steal $100.00. I did this every single week. But after a while, I felt guilty, so I decide to only steal $75.00 a week from you instead. By doing so, did I just give you $25.00 a week?

The government is not giving the wealthy anything by taking less from them. It's their money to begin with. So how is taking less of THEIR money giving them anything?

This whole notion that all money belongs to government first, and whatever they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us is what's most disturbing about the liberal philosophy. It's just like you said about what companies pay people. They are not getting rich from the poor because the poor have no money to begin with. They are giving them jobs albeit low paying jobs, but better than no job at all.

Spending money on education doesn't equate to teaching the right things. It doesn't equate to directing the money in the right way or manner. How much just goes on paying for teachers and nothing else?

Yes, I'd say the Teaching Unions in the US are a major problem, just one of many major problems.

Yes, it is a family effort, and not just the schools. However when parents are encouraged to go out and work 60 hours a week, how much time do they have for this family effort?

How can you encourage too much work and then say it's all down to the family? That's right wing policy in many areas of the country. Is it going to work? Hell no. But they compartmentalize all that they say, and so they will avoid having to deal with the contradiction.

Poor parents, like maybe you live in a poor area if there is a 70% born out of wedlock statistic going on, they need to earn money. They're not earning enough to bring up their kids, there's only one of them in the family, again, where are they? Probably at work, if they're lucky and didn't lose their job.

But kids are growing up with this, and they'll pass this onto their kids. You start with such destruction of the family, and it keeps rolling UNLESS you do something about it. And the right won't do anything about it, the left might try to do something about it, but maybe it's not the right thing. The problems keep mounting. The underlying factor in all of this is the unwillingness to tackle the problems, by saying "everyone can make it in America" and "it's up to the family to solve the problems". Again, we're back to education. And then we're back to the right saying that it's all "indoctrination" if you teach anything other than "Jesus is you're best buddy".

I don't get your scenario.

I'll change your scenario to fit the topic we're discussing from my point of view.

You work for a company and they provide free meals. You lose your job, should you then still get those free meals? No,the meals weren't free, you had to work for them.

Rich companies pay taxes. Most people pay taxes? Why?

Infrastructure.
Security
Stability
Many services are provided.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost dead. So there was no security. Rich people had to pay something like 30% of their income to a mafia to protect them, and even then their mafia might not be as good as another person's mafia. So what?

Large corporations aren't paying 30%, they're paying far, far less than this. In fact they're also being given money. They use a lot of the infrastructure, they make the most of the the military and foreign meddling by the US govt. How many US shareholders have made a ton of money because the US went to war in Iraq? Look at Halliburton, Shell, BP, all these companies which are international companies regardless of their base, and have many US shareholders. They're making money, from the lives of US servicemen and women, from the limbs of US servicemen and women, and from the tax dollars spent on the war.

To change your scenario, it's like I go out every evening, you take $100 a night, and yet I go round to your house every morning and I take your car for a spin, I use your internet, I use your phone, I eat your food, I do all of this. Are you stealing my money? Sure, because you didn't ask. Taking taxes isn't stealing, they asked, and you gave.

Oh please! They asked--you gave? When did government ever "ask" for taxes? They demand them and if you don't give them your money, you'll find yourself at the IRS office, in court, and even in prison in some cases.

Companies don't use social services as much as the general public. Companies do not get food stamps, medicaid, HUD, Social Security, and so on. Companies pay ten times or more what the general public pays and either gets the same or less government services. They are paying more than their fair share.

The federal government was not designed to help people with their personal problems. If you had kids you can't afford, buy things you can't afford, or get into debt because of money spent on unnecessary things, why should that be the publics problem? It's real simple: if you can't afford to have children, then don't have them!

If you encourage irresponsibility like our federal government has, then don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

When did they ever ask? Well every time. You could choose not to pay them, then they demand and cause you problems. You can look at it however you want, it makes no difference. You make a social contract with the society you live in, you could leave, you choose not to, so you pay taxes. You pay taxes to use the stuff around you. Do you not use the roads?

No, companies don't use food stamps. But they use airports, they use roads, they use rail, and most of all, they use the security. Look at Somalia. No govt. Wow, right wing heaven, must be people making money all over the place.... hang on a minute, they're not. Somalia is much poorer than the US. Why's that?
Also some use the military. They use the World Bank (**** the World Bank).

Bolivia is a perfect example. The World Bank went to Bolivia and said "hey, we'll lend you money but you have to privatize your essential industries",

The Politics of Water in Bolivia

" Etched deeply into the granite walls just inside the entrance of the World Bank headquarters in Washington are the words, "Our dream, a world free of poverty.""

This, by the way, is complete bullshit.

In Bolivia they privatized the water industry. Private companies bought the water industry, not Bolivian companies. Why? Well foreign companies have more money, hence why the World Bank wants them to open up to privatization. Makes foreign companies rich.

https://www.citizen.org/documents/Bolivia_(PDF).PDF

"
In February and March of 2000, protests broke out in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in response to the skyrocketing price of water. Many people saw their bills triple or even quadruple,"

Makes the local people poor.

"
For thousands of families, the rate hike meant up to half of their monthly income went to paying for water."

In La Paz, the capital, 25% of people lost access to clean water.

The company that was involved in this took a Spanish name, Aguas del Tunari, but don't be fooled, this was a part of Bechtel, a US company. They make $32 billion a year (in 2015).

The same happened with the dairy industry. Large foreign companies buy up the dairy industry, pay the farmers less, charge the consumers more, take the profits out of the country. And this is supposedly how you help poverty.

Sure as hell makes US companies rich though.

No, the federal govt was not designed to help people with personal problems, things have changed since 1789 though. There are problems. The country is going downhill, the solutions are clear, the desire to enact the solutions aren't there, the US is suffering massively as a result.

I'm not talking about encouraging irresponsibility. I too believe that people should take control of their lives. However it's not happening right now, and it's not happening because in the modern world it is increasingly difficult to do so. People need skills, they need an education because they can compete. The family structure is disappearing and this is causing so many problems for kids. There's a massive inner city problem with gangs, too many people in prisons. Something isn't working.

It's your country. Do you not want to see it get better?

Many of the problems you cite are because of Democrats and liberalism. It's the left that promoted single-parent households particularly the group known as N.O.W. Single parent households are the foundation of crime, poverty, lack of education, and lack of morals. It's the left that rewards people for failure and penalizes success. Have more kids, bigger welfare check, bigger SNAP's card, larger HUD home in the suburbs. Create more wealth, more taxation, less to leave to your heirs through a death tax.

What has changed since 1789 is government DID get involved in personal problem solving over time. And it still exists today by the left. Look at what they ran on! Hillary promising free college, although as we all understand, it's not free, she just wanted to make somebody else pay for it. Paid leave for men and women for any idiotic reason one could think of. Who pays for that? Free and government subsidized healthcare with ruined many lives including mine. Forced birth control and abortion coverage for employees regardless of the employers personal or religious objections. Forcing restaurants to put calorie count on the items in their menu because Americans are too stupid to figure out a double whopper with cheese combo may not keep you slim and trim.

Yes indeed, much of the leftist agenda is attempting to solve personal problems that are better left to the person and not government.

ya.

 

[numan]

Trump won because he was able to tap into the mentality of a lot of votes by shouting nonsense. It's quite sad I suppose that you have 60 million voting for him, and 60 million for hillary. What does it say about the state of the country?

Trump won by shouting nonsense, and Clinton lost by doing nonsense.

What it says about the country is that almost everyone in the USA is feeble-minded and brainwashed (and hysterical most of the time), and is incapable of putting two thoughts together that have any connection with reality.
.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe they're annoyed that this is the 2nd time in 16 years that they've lost an election by getting MORE votes than the other side.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Solutions to the problems.

1) EDUCATION.
Kids go to school, and yet what do they learn? Do they learn how to be decent human beings? How to cook food properly? How to eat healthily? How to learn? How to use their brains? How to bring up children? How to be a good spouse?

No, the right spends a lot of effort saying that this is stuff that shouldn't be taught. Apparently we're supposed to just know this stuff. However even parents who are conscientious struggle to bring up kids as they would like. The right also encourages making money above all else, so, work 60 hours a week, then bitches and moans that the family structure is falling apart.

Do you see the problem here. Govt isn't helping, it's doing the contrary, it's causing problems in society and mostly this is right wing ideology at work. Trump wants to make more money, he wants to screw the environment, he won't deal with social issues, and nor will Congress. For the next 2 years at least nothing will be done. Kids will turn into adults and fumble around and make the same mistakes over and over, and then the right will say "It's up to individuals to solve this problem", yet we know they can't.

Okay, for one, the US spends more money per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the entire world, and we have little to show for it, so money is obviously not the problem. But if you wish to contend that it is, then maybe it's not the money, and it's the unions that keep bad teachers in school.

Secondly, when it comes to education, it's a family effort and not just the schools. But because leftists have promoted single-parent households for decades now, parents are not involved with their children's education. Their involvement stops after they shoo them onto to school bus. That's where the failure is.

I live in a black neighborhood, and statistically, over 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. My former neighbor used to have a portable basketball hoop set up in his backyard. Kids from everywhere came here to play. They came here right after school and played well past dark. Okay, so where are the parents here? Why are their kids playing basketball instead of doing homework or preparing for the next day in school. Yeah, but money is the problem.....

Now you said something I find quite striking, and that is the government is helping the wealthy.

So I want to use a scenario here. Let's say you lived next door to me, and when you went out for your evening walk, I would go into your home and steal $100.00. I did this every single week. But after a while, I felt guilty, so I decide to only steal $75.00 a week from you instead. By doing so, did I just give you $25.00 a week?

The government is not giving the wealthy anything by taking less from them. It's their money to begin with. So how is taking less of THEIR money giving them anything?

This whole notion that all money belongs to government first, and whatever they allow us to keep is a gift from them to us is what's most disturbing about the liberal philosophy. It's just like you said about what companies pay people. They are not getting rich from the poor because the poor have no money to begin with. They are giving them jobs albeit low paying jobs, but better than no job at all.

Spending money on education doesn't equate to teaching the right things. It doesn't equate to directing the money in the right way or manner. How much just goes on paying for teachers and nothing else?

Yes, I'd say the Teaching Unions in the US are a major problem, just one of many major problems.

Yes, it is a family effort, and not just the schools. However when parents are encouraged to go out and work 60 hours a week, how much time do they have for this family effort?

How can you encourage too much work and then say it's all down to the family? That's right wing policy in many areas of the country. Is it going to work? Hell no. But they compartmentalize all that they say, and so they will avoid having to deal with the contradiction.

Poor parents, like maybe you live in a poor area if there is a 70% born out of wedlock statistic going on, they need to earn money. They're not earning enough to bring up their kids, there's only one of them in the family, again, where are they? Probably at work, if they're lucky and didn't lose their job.

But kids are growing up with this, and they'll pass this onto their kids. You start with such destruction of the family, and it keeps rolling UNLESS you do something about it. And the right won't do anything about it, the left might try to do something about it, but maybe it's not the right thing. The problems keep mounting. The underlying factor in all of this is the unwillingness to tackle the problems, by saying "everyone can make it in America" and "it's up to the family to solve the problems". Again, we're back to education. And then we're back to the right saying that it's all "indoctrination" if you teach anything other than "Jesus is you're best buddy".

I don't get your scenario.

I'll change your scenario to fit the topic we're discussing from my point of view.

You work for a company and they provide free meals. You lose your job, should you then still get those free meals? No,the meals weren't free, you had to work for them.

Rich companies pay taxes. Most people pay taxes? Why?

Infrastructure.
Security
Stability
Many services are provided.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost dead. So there was no security. Rich people had to pay something like 30% of their income to a mafia to protect them, and even then their mafia might not be as good as another person's mafia. So what?

Large corporations aren't paying 30%, they're paying far, far less than this. In fact they're also being given money. They use a lot of the infrastructure, they make the most of the the military and foreign meddling by the US govt. How many US shareholders have made a ton of money because the US went to war in Iraq? Look at Halliburton, Shell, BP, all these companies which are international companies regardless of their base, and have many US shareholders. They're making money, from the lives of US servicemen and women, from the limbs of US servicemen and women, and from the tax dollars spent on the war.

To change your scenario, it's like I go out every evening, you take $100 a night, and yet I go round to your house every morning and I take your car for a spin, I use your internet, I use your phone, I eat your food, I do all of this. Are you stealing my money? Sure, because you didn't ask. Taking taxes isn't stealing, they asked, and you gave.

Oh please! They asked--you gave? When did government ever "ask" for taxes? They demand them and if you don't give them your money, you'll find yourself at the IRS office, in court, and even in prison in some cases.

Companies don't use social services as much as the general public. Companies do not get food stamps, medicaid, HUD, Social Security, and so on. Companies pay ten times or more what the general public pays and either gets the same or less government services. They are paying more than their fair share.

The federal government was not designed to help people with their personal problems. If you had kids you can't afford, buy things you can't afford, or get into debt because of money spent on unnecessary things, why should that be the publics problem? It's real simple: if you can't afford to have children, then don't have them!

If you encourage irresponsibility like our federal government has, then don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

When did they ever ask? Well every time. You could choose not to pay them, then they demand and cause you problems. You can look at it however you want, it makes no difference. You make a social contract with the society you live in, you could leave, you choose not to, so you pay taxes. You pay taxes to use the stuff around you. Do you not use the roads?

No, companies don't use food stamps. But they use airports, they use roads, they use rail, and most of all, they use the security. Look at Somalia. No govt. Wow, right wing heaven, must be people making money all over the place.... hang on a minute, they're not. Somalia is much poorer than the US. Why's that?
Also some use the military. They use the World Bank (**** the World Bank).

Bolivia is a perfect example. The World Bank went to Bolivia and said "hey, we'll lend you money but you have to privatize your essential industries",

The Politics of Water in Bolivia

" Etched deeply into the granite walls just inside the entrance of the World Bank headquarters in Washington are the words, "Our dream, a world free of poverty.""

This, by the way, is complete bullshit.

In Bolivia they privatized the water industry. Private companies bought the water industry, not Bolivian companies. Why? Well foreign companies have more money, hence why the World Bank wants them to open up to privatization. Makes foreign companies rich.

https://www.citizen.org/documents/Bolivia_(PDF).PDF

"
In February and March of 2000, protests broke out in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in response to the skyrocketing price of water. Many people saw their bills triple or even quadruple,"

Makes the local people poor.

"
For thousands of families, the rate hike meant up to half of their monthly income went to paying for water."

In La Paz, the capital, 25% of people lost access to clean water.

The company that was involved in this took a Spanish name, Aguas del Tunari, but don't be fooled, this was a part of Bechtel, a US company. They make $32 billion a year (in 2015).

The same happened with the dairy industry. Large foreign companies buy up the dairy industry, pay the farmers less, charge the consumers more, take the profits out of the country. And this is supposedly how you help poverty.

Sure as hell makes US companies rich though.

No, the federal govt was not designed to help people with personal problems, things have changed since 1789 though. There are problems. The country is going downhill, the solutions are clear, the desire to enact the solutions aren't there, the US is suffering massively as a result.

I'm not talking about encouraging irresponsibility. I too believe that people should take control of their lives. However it's not happening right now, and it's not happening because in the modern world it is increasingly difficult to do so. People need skills, they need an education because they can compete. The family structure is disappearing and this is causing so many problems for kids. There's a massive inner city problem with gangs, too many people in prisons. Something isn't working.

It's your country. Do you not want to see it get better?

Many of the problems you cite are because of Democrats and liberalism. It's the left that promoted single-parent households particularly the group known as N.O.W. Single parent households are the foundation of crime, poverty, lack of education, and lack of morals. It's the left that rewards people for failure and penalizes success. Have more kids, bigger welfare check, bigger SNAP's card, larger HUD home in the suburbs. Create more wealth, more taxation, less to leave to your heirs through a death tax.

What has changed since 1789 is government DID get involved in personal problem solving over time. And it still exists today by the left. Look at what they ran on! Hillary promising free college, although as we all understand, it's not free, she just wanted to make somebody else pay for it. Paid leave for men and women for any idiotic reason one could think of. Who pays for that? Free and government subsidized healthcare with ruined many lives including mine. Forced birth control and abortion coverage for employees regardless of the employers personal or religious objections. Forcing restaurants to put calorie count on the items in their menu because Americans are too stupid to figure out a double whopper with cheese combo may not keep you slim and trim.

Yes indeed, much of the leftist agenda is attempting to solve personal problems that are better left to the person and not government.

No, I think you're wrong.

It's not about left and right, it's about any factors.

Countries Compared by People > Divorce rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

According to this the US is highest, then Russia, then the UK, then Denmark.

Okay, the UK is more liberal than the US, Russia is very conservative.

Worldwide Divorce Statistics

This one has:

1. Belarus 68%
2. Russian Federation 65%
3. Sweden 64%
4. Latvia 63%
5. Ukraine 63%
6. Czech Republic 61%
7. Belgium 56%
8. Finland 56%
9. Lithuania 55%
10. United Kingdom 53%
11. Moldova 52%
12. United States 49%
13. Hungary 46%
14. Canada 45%
15. Norway 43%
16. France 43%
17. Germany 41%

Why do people get divorced? Number one reason is because they can, obviously. Some countries prevent it from happening. Some countries don't prevent it, but society does.

Yes, liberalism has helped to raise the rates. People have more freedom, they are less willing to put up with crap. But this is more a factor of the modern world than anything else. Money buys freedom. Long gone are the days when people lived hand to mouth. Now they can socialize etc.

I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days when people were essentially slaves. It might have meant lower divorce rates, or no divorce rates, but it wasn't a better time.

But within the structure that exists, of freedom, there are countries with higher and lower divorce rates.

What makes a difference? Liberal policies? Conservative policies? Policies?

Number of hours worked probably makes a difference. This is more a right wing policy than a left wing policy.

But here are some reasons:

The 8 Most Common Reasons for Divorce

1) lack of commitment. 73% said this was the reason. A right wing policy? A left win policy? Or just modern life?

2) Too much arguing. 56% of people said this was the reason. A policy? Or just life?

3) Infidelity. 55% said this caused their split. A policy, or just life?

4) Marrying too young. This one is interesting. In the US people marry far younger than in other western countries.

List of countries by age at first marriage - Wikipedia

The US is 28 years old.

UK, 31.6, Sweden 34.6, Germany 32.2, Denmark 31.9, France 31.9, Australia 30.6.

This is definitely a right wing policy. Abstinence programs lead people to marry younger so they can ****. It's that simple in some cases, but then it becomes a part of society, and people expect to marry younger.

5) Unrealistic expectations. A policy, or modern life?

With those that seem to be "that's modern life", how many of them are because people aren't made to think about their relationships, don't understand what they're getting into, don't have any idea about it all? I had a discussion about marriage with a girl from Nebraska, 21 years old, she basically believed you got marry and were happy ever after. Er... what?

How many of these happen because education isn't good enough? How many of these divorces happen because people are told to just figure it out for themselves, no one gets help? Traditional society has broken down everywhere, entertainment, money, freedom, they've changed the world. Govts need to change with them, or see the problems rise.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not really? What would you call hurling insults are people from behind a computer screen then?

I couldn't care less whether a ton of liberals did this, that or the other. I happen not to weigh a ton, therefore I am not a ton of liberals. I'd ask who the hell you think you're talking to when you reply to me, I am only one person and not all liberals.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time debating the person you're replying to, rather than some ghost you invented, you might not find the need to hurl insults so much, and actually develop an argument.

Now its just gay. As for who I think i am talking to, I dint ******* care. If you hate it do one of two or doth things. Dont whine about shit, or if you do dont lie, or use your ignore feature. As for debating people, no use if all they are doing is crying on their pillow. Better to make fun of them as im not the hugging type.

I have no idea what you're saying. Try English.

You libs only speak cup cake. English wont help. Go find a safe place to be happy in. The next 4 years are going to kind of suck for you.

English kind of helps when you're trying to communicate.

yawn.

Yes, it's so boring. Ignore list. You're a waste of time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I'm suggesting blue collar workers are easily manipulated.

Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonalds, Burger King etc etc etc etc etc are evidence that this is the case.

Like I've said, intelligent people will often stick their head in the sand, they want to be told sweet nothings, not be told the reality.

In 1990 the Germans had their first election as a re-unified country. The left wing SPD said "It'll be a hard road ahead" the right wing CDU said "It'll be all roses". They voted for the latter, they got the former.

Some people on both sides of the "debate" will hurl insults. Trump didn't win because of putdowns, he won for other reasons. However it shows the level of politics, and this forum does too, when insults are the staple diet.

The main reason I talk about electoral reform is because there are two parties, and millions of people, you're looking at 90 to 100 million people "support" their party like they'd support a football team. They want to win no matter what. They don't care about the politics.

One day they're abusing Bill Clinton for liking sex with women. The next they're ignoring Trump liking sex with women. One day they're shouting that Hillary is a criminal. The next they're ignoring that Trump has done lots of illegal stuff.

This is the game. The game doesn't require logic, consistency, it requires shouting louder, it requires insults, it requires nonsense, and the people love it.

Utter bull. Democrats lost for a host of reasons. Trump never put our national security at risk. Trump never destroyed evidence subpoenaed by the US Congress. Trump never lied to the US Congress repeatedly under oath. Trump was never placed above the fray simply because he was a member of the political society.

Most of all Trump won because people wanted to keep Hillary as far from the White House as we could. Sure, we don't know how Trump will do as President, but we do know what Hil-Liar would have done as President. We've seen what she's done as SOS and it's quiet pathetic.

You don't really fear people embellishing their candidate like a football team because that's exactly what happened with DumBama. They loved him personally but rejected his policies. That's what brought on historic mid-term elections as well as the presidential election we just had.

I did say they lost for lots of reasons.

Trump didn't put the security at risk? He's never been in govt to have shown whether he would or wouldn't.

The way you're using "Hil-Liar" and "DumBama", seriously, you're better than that, aren't you?