EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

< Return to subforum
Page: 123Most Recent
admin
By admin | Sep 17 2016 1:32 PM
Bi0Hazard: Not really
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
ColeTrain
By ColeTrain | Sep 20 2016 12:17 PM
admin: Jill Stein is a wacky politician. She won't win anyways, so support for her effectively goes to the worst of the two front-runners: Hillary.

Also, what do you mean voting Hillary out after 3 years?
"Man is not free unless government is limited" -- Ronald Reagan
Topics: http://tinyurl.com/oh9tm6u
admin
By admin | Sep 20 2016 6:20 PM
ColeTrain: I disagree. Her support erodes the support of BOTH of the frontrunning candidates. Which I see as being very good because I tend to agree with Jill Stein on most things, and disagree with the frontrunners on nearly everything.

I mean that she's predictable and stable. I will not fear the world blowing up in the 3 years that she's in power. That means that Americans have the chance to remove her from power at the next election. And that will be the easiest election for the republicans ever, probably. I have no faith in Hillary's vision whatsoever.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | Sep 20 2016 6:21 PM
In all fairness, the last US president I have any respect for, except for Obama, was Jimmy Carter, and he didn't have a clue what he was doing. US has had some terrible leadership. In fairness, Reagan had a vision, I just happen to totally disagree with it.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
ColeTrain
By ColeTrain | Sep 21 2016 10:54 AM
admin: She won't win, though. In that regard, it's useless to support a minor-party candidate until the two-party system ceases to exist. Voting for a third-party obviously isn't achieving that end. The two frontrunners are the least liked leaders -- ever. No third-party candidate is polling even close to 15%, even with that advantage. It will take a political overhaul (or possibly a Trump win, to some skeptics) to get rid of the two party system. Until then, it's unwise to waste a vote on a minor candidate like Stein, Johnson, or any other such candidate.

4 years is the election cycle. Still, I hope Trump wins.
"Man is not free unless government is limited" -- Ronald Reagan
Topics: http://tinyurl.com/oh9tm6u
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Sep 21 2016 11:20 AM
ColeTrain: Trumps chances have risen.
Bolshevik-
By Bolshevik- | Oct 20 2016 1:08 PM
I'm not sure how Americans can like Trump. At least Clinton isn't a complete idiot. Just look at the debates, she basically won them all.
Victory: http://www.edeb8.com/forum/Games/828
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Oct 21 2016 6:09 AM
Bolshevik-: I'm not sure how Americans can like Trump.
What makes him unlikable?
Bolshevik-
By Bolshevik- | Oct 21 2016 7:01 AM
Bi0Hazard: Hes clearly an idiot and a businessman, not a politician. I'm not so much against Republicans and personally I don't care if Trump gets elected. Its just that it will be a horrible experience for the American people.
Victory: http://www.edeb8.com/forum/Games/828
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Oct 21 2016 7:07 AM
Bolshevik-: Hes clearly an idiot
It would be better to say that he is more "naive", but many view him as a smart person.
and a businessman
Not in itself a sufficient reason to dislike a candidate.
Its just that it will be a horrible experience for the American people.
Lots of people say that, but have yet to see a reason for this besides that he is an "idiot" or "a racist". Mostly just personal feelings.
I would say that from a standpoint of his policies and what impact they would have on the population.
Bolshevik-
By Bolshevik- | Oct 21 2016 7:25 AM
Bi0Hazard: I guess we would only truly know if he becomes president, which looking at the polls will probably will not happen now looking at the polls.
Victory: http://www.edeb8.com/forum/Games/828
Wylted
By Wylted | Dec 18 2016 4:29 AM
admin: She got into politics specifically to get rich out of backroom deals. Trump has no reason other than altruism to run. He is already rich enough to not have to worry about anything. You should lok at his policies instead of believing the straw manned arguments of CNN
Wylted
By Wylted | Dec 18 2016 4:30 AM
Bolshevik-: Didhow you honestly believe polls that were intetionally biased to discourage and dishearten Republicans?
admin
By admin | Dec 18 2016 6:20 AM
Wylted: Trump looks pretty capable of using power to generate wealth to me, but as a liberal, whose policies do you think I will support? Obviously Bernie's. Trumps policies are anti-globalist, nationalist, populist, conservative, and conspiratorial. I don't believe anyone who those labels describes really wants to use the government to help people.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Wylted
By Wylted | Dec 18 2016 6:31 AM
admin: Man we have opposite thoughts. I think liberalism is just a scheme for big business to regulate the small guy out of business, globalism just a way to consolidate power even more for the elites. I'm not exactly sure how anyone who has studied politics could be liberal unless they are evil and one of the elites. Conservatism is better for the economy and thus the poor, the more capitalist a country is the more prosperous it becomes and the better quality of life people have. Freedom is obviously a good thing but I would like to hear a good liberal argument against freedom (negative rights). Why are you liberal (oppose economic freedom)? Have you not seen all the studies that show how bad a welfare state is as opposed to one with economic prosperity where everyone can make a living for themselves?
admin
By admin | Dec 18 2016 7:08 AM
Wylted: liberalism is just a scheme for big business to regulate the small guy out of business
As a businessperson one of my biggest threats was the tax department. I'm sure it's the same for small businesspeople over there. The problem was the tax system was flat. So as a business I paid 30% tax. If I had earned the same as an employee my effective tax rate would have been 0%. Flat tax is a conservative policy, not a progressive one. Other regulations? Ask big business what they think of them. I've been in department stores, retirement home chains, stadiums ... I've seen people laugh at basic health and safety laws.

Liberalism stands for two principles, freedom and equality. Balancing those two in different ways is the hallmark of liberalism, as a principle. Businesses are a social structure, and conservatives uphold existing social order. So of course conservatives support big business. Liberals do so insofar as it allows others to run a business. You can't have a competitive market if you don't have a level playing field.

globalism just a way to consolidate power even more for the elites
That's only true when people allow there to BE elites. You can have globalism and regulate away massive wealth inequality.

Conservatism is better for the economy
Conservatism =/= capitalism. I believe in free markets but I expect we may have different ideas of what that looks like. I don't think a market can be free unless it is heavily regulated. What I disagree with other liberals on is that I don't believe in protecting specific industries. That's anti-competitive. I do believe in providing basic laws to ensure consumers, workers, small business etc are given a fair go. If they're treated well, that allows all of them to be free in the market, both from exploitation, and to do their own thing competitively. Such a system, I believe, is the most efficient way to allocate resources.

the more capitalist a country is the more prosperous it becomes
Not necessarily a correlation. Of course there are free trade deals or privatization contracts anyone could point to which, despite traditionally being seen as capitalist, have been disastrous for a country.

the better quality of life people have
If you measure this purely in material goods then it's a truism. Certainly there's no GDP -> happiness correlation. It's a metrics thing.

I would like to hear a good liberal argument against freedom (negative rights)
Liberals support freedom insofar as it ensures equality. We disagree on the balance and sometimes on the definitions (for example I don't believe in affirmative action in most normal contexts). But I believe the goal of a good government should be to ensure people are both free and equal insofar as it can be balanced.

Why are you liberal (oppose economic freedom)?
That's not what I understand liberal to mean. I like economic freedom, I just have a different view of what freedom is. I consider economic freedom to be aggregate autonomy in a market. It's not the absolute lack of government intervention. Governments can have a strong role in increasing people's overall freedom.

Have you not seen all the studies that show how bad a welfare state is as opposed to one with economic prosperity where everyone can make a living for themselves?
That's the thing. In a conservative country, you can't make a living for yourself. You're at the mercy of those in control. Of course many welfare states aren't really liberal and have a significant political upper class. If not for that I suspect many of those "studies" would be kinda different.

NZ is an extremely liberal country and we've been the wealthiest country in the world before. And we score well on business friendliness. Of course we have problems and could do more, but overall I'm happy where I am.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Wylted
By Wylted | Dec 18 2016 7:13 AM
I'll respond to this when I have time, but under my plan you would have paid zero tax and no the bil conservatives push known as flat tax is actually a progressive tax, just a more simplified tax code instead o! The millions of pafes we have now because liberals like taxes
admin
By admin | Dec 18 2016 8:45 AM
Wylted: There's virtually no justification for flat tax being progressive. The usual logic is something like this: a 20% flat tax means a person earning $1 only pays 20c, while somebody earning $10 has to pay $2, so of course the greater share falls on the wealthier person. Obviously written by somebody who had no idea what a "share" is. In a progressive tax system the poor person would pay perhaps only 1c and the rich person $5 (exaggerating). It's progressive because the greater marginal burden falls on the wealthy.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Wylted
By Wylted | Dec 18 2016 8:47 AM
admin: " As a businessperson one of my biggest threats was the tax department. I'm sure it's the same for small businesspeople over there. The problem was the tax system was flat. So as a business I paid 30% tax. If I had earned the same as an employee my effective tax rate would have been 0%. Flat tax is a conservative policy, not a progressive one. Other regulations? Ask big business what they think of them. I've been in department stores, retirement home chains, stadiums ... I've seen people laugh at basic health and safety laws.

Conservatives want to completely eliminate taxes, but even those who view it as a necessary evil believe in progressive taxation. All the flat tax proposals in the United States are actually just simplified progressive taxation schemes.

Liberalism stands for two principles, freedom and equality. Balancing those two in different ways is the hallmark of liberalism, as a principle. Businesses are a social structure, and conservatives uphold existing social order. So of course conservatives support big business. Liberals do so insofar as it allows others to run a business. You can't have a competitive market if you don't have a level playing field.

Not really. I'm a conservative and very anti-establishment. I'd like to see it all burned to the ground so we can fix the mistakes of progressives (aka liberals) and have a truly competitive market as opposed to monopolies coupled by a police state.

Conservatism =/= capitalism. I believe in free markets but I expect we may have different ideas of what that looks like. I don't think a market can be free unless it is heavily regulated.

You guys have really embraced 1984 as a blueprint. You want freedom, yet you want the government to control everything. This is classic Orwellian double speak.

What I disagree with other liberals on is that I don't believe in protecting specific industries. That's anti-competitive.

Good, you have one sensible view at least.

I do believe in providing basic laws to ensure consumers, workers, small business etc are given a fair go.

That only happens in a Laisse Faire environment not one where major banks write banking legislation, or insurance agencies write insurance policy like liberals have created.

Not necessarily a correlation. Of course there are free trade deals or privatization contracts anyone could point to which, despite traditionally being seen as capitalist, have been disastrous for a country.

Those aren't free market. A real free trade deal would require one sentence signed on a piece of paper, not 10,000 or more pages of legalese.

But I believe the goal of a good government should be to ensure people are both free and equal insofar as it can be balanced.

Is this some perverted Marxist view of equality or is it the sensible political equality view?

I consider economic freedom to be aggregate autonomy in a market. It's not the absolute lack of government intervention. Governments can have a strong role in increasing people's overall freedom.

The government's role should be to protect negative rights, and a Laisse Faire system would create economic autonomy, if I didn't I would advocate for a system that did it better. We can see under your liberal policies people have become corporate wage slaves because regulations have driven small businesses out. We went from 80% of banking done with mom and pops prior to Glass Steagull to 99% being done with the top 5 banks. The same thing happened with liberal policies to the food industry where everything was organic and locally grown to now I only buy from the top 5 food companies. So as history has shown a Laisse Faire system would mean more competition, more people starting businesses if they desired to do so, and more economic autonomy.

That's the thing. In a conservative country, you can't make a living for yourself. You're at the mercy of those in control. Of course many welfare states aren't really liberal and have a significant political upper class. If not for that I suspect many of those "studies" would be kinda different.

NZ is an extremely liberal country and we've been the wealthiest country in the world before. And we score well on business friendliness. Of course we have problems and could do more, but overall I'm happy where I am.


No no, conservative countries basically means the people are in control of their decisions. They can start their own business, work for whoever they want, but liberal policies have made us at the mercy of a government that wants to control everything, as well as forcing us to become corporate wage slaves when our grandfathers all were business owners who supported the family on one income.
Wylted
By Wylted | Dec 18 2016 8:49 AM
admin: but all the flat tax plans are progressive. They just have less tax brackets. I know they are being called flat, but it is a rhetorical device, and those tax schemes are all progressive. If you don't believe me, go actually take a look at the bills being pushed by these people who are claiming to push a flat tax.
Page: 123Most Recent