Jump to content


Photo

The United States Presidential Election of 2016 [Brohoof Edition]


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

Poll: The United States Presidential Election of 2016 [Brohoof Edition] (38 member(s) have cast votes)

Who would you vote for?

  1. Hillary Clinton (1 votes [2.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.86%

  2. Bernie Sanders (17 votes [48.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.57%

  3. Donald Trump (15 votes [42.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  4. John Kasich (2 votes [5.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.71%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:00 AM

UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION POLLS

[Brohoof Edition]

giphy.gif

 

 

I feel like at this point, this should exist. So here it is.

 

PLEASE, I AM BEGGING YOU, PLEASE DO NOT START FLAME WARS IN THE COMMENTS. IF YOU HAVE TO SAY WHO YOU'RE VOTING FOR AND WHY, PLEASE DO SO IN A CALM, UNBIASED, AND FACTUAL MATTER [with, like, evidence and such]. 

 

So, yeah. I really don't know what else to say about this, I think this election speaks for itself. Or just look at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia..._election,_2016

 

THE CANDIDATES

 

DEMOCRATIC PARTY:

 

HILLARY CLINTON

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

 

BERNARD "BERNIE" SANDERS

https://berniesander...?nosplash=true/

 

REPUBLICAN PARTY:

 

DONALD TRUMP

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

 

RAFAEL "TED" CRUZ

https://www.tedcruz.org/index.html

Ted Cruz has dropped out of the race as of May 3rd.

 

JOHN KASICH

https://www.johnkasich.com/

 

So yeah. That's the whole thing. Vote now, cause

DEMOCRACY!!!

 

giphy.gif

 

Let's hope we don't f*ck this up, like we did with Bush.


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 04 May 2016 - 02:54 AM.


#2 Cat_Actor

Cat_Actor

    Waterbender

  • Builder
  • 443 posts
  • minecraft:
    TenderTaps

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:05 AM

John Kasich would make an amazing president. I think he has the most experience and he knows what he is doing. He is an awesome Governor, even though I dont live in Ohio, he has done some amazing things. I am very for John Kasich, you would know if you saw my twitter, I even got his app. I still think he has a chance even though he is very far behind. He is probably smarter than the rest of the candidates, and America needs to realize that. #JohnKasich4US



#3 Clover

Clover

    Knock 'em dead, darling! <3

  • Pony
  • 167 posts
  • minecraft:
    Clover

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:13 AM

trump for president



#4 The Clef

The Clef

    Go fuck yourself clover

  • Builder
  • 164 posts
  • minecraft:
    Cleeeeef

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:13 AM

all hail president trump, future dictator of america



#5 Rarara

Rarara

    meme

  • Builder
  • 532 posts
  • minecraft:
    Maud_Pie

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:13 AM

C A N T S T U M P T H E T R U M P 
A
N
T
S
T
U
M
P
T
H
E
T
R
U
M
P



#6 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:18 AM

For me, Bernie Sanders is truly the best candidate out there. He is the true voice of the people. He refuses super PACS, only accepting donations from the general public. He fights for everything I fight for - battling against climate change, wealth inequality, billionaires buying our elections, systemic racism and sexism, and supports a lot of really good stuff, like free healthcare, free education, and rebuilding the broken middle class of America. It's like he says: "At the end of the day, they may have the money, but we have the people, and when the people stand together, we will win!" #FeelTheBern



#7 Rarara

Rarara

    meme

  • Builder
  • 532 posts
  • minecraft:
    Maud_Pie

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:22 AM

For me, Bernie Sanders is truly the best candidate out there. He is the true voice of the people. He refuses super PACS, only accepting donations from the general public. He fights for everything I fight for - battling against climate change, wealth inequality, billionaires buying our elections, systemic racism and sexism, and supports a lot of really good stuff, like free healthcare, free education, and rebuilding the broken middle class of America. It's like he says: "At the end of the day, they may have the money, but we have the people, and when the people stand together, we will win!" #FeelTheBern

Spoiler


Edited by Rarara, 05 April 2016 - 02:25 AM.


#8 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:23 AM

Guys, this is not meant to start a politics war. This is just a "Who I'd vote for and why" thing.

 

EDIT: oh. 


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 05 April 2016 - 02:24 AM.


#9 The Clef

The Clef

    Go fuck yourself clover

  • Builder
  • 164 posts
  • minecraft:
    Cleeeeef

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:24 AM

Guys, this is not meant to start a politics war. This is just a "Who I'd vote for and why" thing.

Most people here can't even vote.



#10 Doctor Charcoal

Doctor Charcoal

    Something something charcoal

  • Builder
  • 528 posts
  • minecraft:
    DoctorCharcoal

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:25 AM

Guys, this is not meant to start a politics war. This is just a "Who I'd vote for and why" thing.

 

And this is why politics =/= the internet.



#11 Luna Lens

Luna Lens

    Hiya

  • Administrator
  • 2617 posts
  • minecraft:
    Princess_Luna

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:26 AM

Most people here can't even vote.

 

He's right. Plus, this is the kind of topic that'll either turn into a shitstorm or not get taken seriously at all.



#12 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:27 AM

He's right. Plus, this is the kind of topic that'll either turn into a shitstorm or not get taken seriously at all.

 

True. But I still think it's interesting to see where people stand on stuff like this, even if I disagree with them.



#13 The Clef

The Clef

    Go fuck yourself clover

  • Builder
  • 164 posts
  • minecraft:
    Cleeeeef

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:30 AM

True. But I still think it's interesting to see where people stand on stuff like this, even if I disagree with them.

Most people probably won't take it seriously and will just vote donald trump as a joke in this thread.



#14 Squint

Squint

    Zzz

  • Builder
  • 4956 posts
  • minecraft:
    Squu

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:30 AM

hmm, who do we have here...

 

oh. only one person who would actually make a good president. ok.



#15 Rainbow Dash McStarley

Rainbow Dash McStarley

    The glitch in the system.

  • Admin
  • 1572 posts
  • minecraft:
    Dash_McStarley

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:38 AM

I think you forgot to take into account that people aren't necessarily going to vote seriously. At all. You have 4 people and a meme, and the meme always wins on the Internet.



#16 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:39 AM

I think you forgot to take into account that people aren't necessarily going to vote seriously. At all. You have 4 people and a meme, and the meme always wins on the Internet.

 

Should I remove the meme and only have the people?



#17 UltimateDemon

UltimateDemon

    "Pen-Ultimate," that is.

  • Retired Admin
  • 736 posts
  • minecraft:
    UltimateDemon

Posted 05 April 2016 - 05:00 AM

Screw all of the mainstream candidates. I've gotta give my vote to my main man, Vermin Love Supreme. I want my free pony, dammit!

#18 jimme neutron corndog

jimme neutron corndog

    Is a woman

  • Builder
  • 1822 posts
  • minecraft:
    Sierif

Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:35 AM

vote for deez nuts xd

also vermin supreme please

Edited by jimme neutron corndog, 05 April 2016 - 11:36 AM.


#19 Npaws

Npaws

    And now my watch begins

  • Builder
  • 1821 posts
  • minecraft:
    Npaws

Posted 05 April 2016 - 01:38 PM

Why is "none of these fuckwits" not an option?

#20 UltimateDemon

UltimateDemon

    "Pen-Ultimate," that is.

  • Retired Admin
  • 736 posts
  • minecraft:
    UltimateDemon

Posted 05 April 2016 - 01:51 PM

Why is "none of these fuckwits" not an option?

It is. It's called writing in or not voting.

#21 UltimateDemon

UltimateDemon

    "Pen-Ultimate," that is.

  • Retired Admin
  • 736 posts
  • minecraft:
    UltimateDemon

Posted 05 April 2016 - 01:51 PM

Why is "none of these fuckwits" not an option?

It is. It's called writing in or not voting.

Edit: oh, you mean for the poll on this page. A better question is: why is Vermin Supreme not an option?

Edited by UltimateDemon, 05 April 2016 - 01:52 PM.


#22 Doctor Charcoal

Doctor Charcoal

    Something something charcoal

  • Builder
  • 528 posts
  • minecraft:
    DoctorCharcoal

Posted 05 April 2016 - 01:57 PM

Yes. Vermin Supreme should be on there.

#23 Captain Char

Captain Char

    Brohoofs Celestia

  • Banned
  • 4300 posts
  • minecraft:
    Captain_Char

Posted 05 April 2016 - 07:00 PM

im canadian, im not voting for any murcian, unless Ratty is voted in

#24 R9000

R9000

    Pegasus Engineer

  • Admin
  • 685 posts
  • minecraft:
    R9000

Posted 05 April 2016 - 07:50 PM

im canadian, im not voting for any murcian, unless Ratty is voted in

 

If Ratty was already voted in, why would you still be voting for him?



#25 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 05 April 2016 - 09:03 PM

Well, here's hoping people would take it even a little bit seriously. That's why I put in in the "Off Topic" and not the "Shenanigans" board.



#26 Npaws

Npaws

    And now my watch begins

  • Builder
  • 1821 posts
  • minecraft:
    Npaws

Posted 05 April 2016 - 09:53 PM

You want serious? I hate all of them with a passion but if I had to vote it would be for a Republican at this point. The democratic candidates are both awful. I would even take Trump over Bernie or Hillary

#27 Captain Char

Captain Char

    Brohoofs Celestia

  • Banned
  • 4300 posts
  • minecraft:
    Captain_Char

Posted 05 April 2016 - 10:12 PM

in all seriousness, none are really good, can we get a new party?

#28 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 05 April 2016 - 10:18 PM

in all seriousness, none are really good, can we get a new party?

 

What would you have in mind?



#29 UltimateDemon

UltimateDemon

    "Pen-Ultimate," that is.

  • Retired Admin
  • 736 posts
  • minecraft:
    UltimateDemon

Posted 06 April 2016 - 12:53 AM

Why has Vermin Supreme not yet graced the poll with his presence?

#30 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 06 April 2016 - 03:12 AM

Why has Vermin Supreme not yet graced the poll with his presence?

 

Firstly, I have no idea who that is. Second, this is kinda real life. So. You know.



#31 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 06 April 2016 - 03:42 AM

Uh, guys? I feel like you should give this a read...

 

http://deadpresident...mercenary-force



#32 greebster

greebster

    World's best mom!

  • Builder
  • 2530 posts
  • minecraft:
    greebster

Posted 06 April 2016 - 05:47 AM

I don't see Deez Nuts. Why is Deez Nuts not in the votes?

#33 UltimateDemon

UltimateDemon

    "Pen-Ultimate," that is.

  • Retired Admin
  • 736 posts
  • minecraft:
    UltimateDemon

Posted 06 April 2016 - 06:38 AM

Firstly, I have no idea who that is. Second, this is kinda real life. So. You know.

You dare insult his majesty, Vermin Supreme? If you don't know who he is, just look him up. He's a legit candidate. It's not like you could even confuse him with another Vermin Love Supreme, either.

#34 GoopHug

GoopHug

    I've been pony rank for three years.

  • Pony
  • 615 posts
  • minecraft:
    GoopHug

Posted 06 April 2016 - 07:53 AM

I'm Scottish, here's my view on the election.

HILLARY CLINTON

The one who sucks.

BERNARD "BERNIE" SANDERS

The only good one.

REPUBLICAN PARTY:

 

DONALD TRUMP

Hitler 2.0

RAFAEL "TED" CRUZ

Zodiac Killer

JOHN KASICH

who?



#35 Npaws

Npaws

    And now my watch begins

  • Builder
  • 1821 posts
  • minecraft:
    Npaws

Posted 06 April 2016 - 02:16 PM

I laughed at the zodiac killer one

#36 DjBron3

DjBron3

    Post apocalyptic RPer

  • Pony
  • 7 posts
  • minecraft:
    kafkakid2000

Posted 07 April 2016 - 03:24 AM

I vote waste of supplies and money on building a giant wall.

#37 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 08 April 2016 - 12:09 AM

No one's voted for Clinton, which actually doesn't surprise me, and shouldn't surprise anyone, for that matter. 

 

To be fair, I get that Hillary is kind of a bad person, but the whole Hillary for Prison thing is kinda going too far.


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 08 April 2016 - 02:41 AM.


#38 Wolf I.E.

Wolf I.E.

    fuck human beings fuck humanity

  • Builder
  • 398 posts
  • minecraft:
    peridootdoot

Posted 08 April 2016 - 02:41 AM



#39 Shroom Agent

Shroom Agent

    Background Pony

  • Administrator
  • 1870 posts
  • minecraft:
    SweetieBelle

Posted 08 April 2016 - 02:42 AM

193.png
193.png
193.png
193.png
193.png
193.png

#40 UltimateDemon

UltimateDemon

    "Pen-Ultimate," that is.

  • Retired Admin
  • 736 posts
  • minecraft:
    UltimateDemon

Posted 08 April 2016 - 03:47 AM

Why is Vermin Supreme still not an option? All I want is to vote for best brony candidate!

#41 Npaws

Npaws

    And now my watch begins

  • Builder
  • 1821 posts
  • minecraft:
    Npaws

Posted 08 April 2016 - 12:18 PM

Can you add Mario Lopez too?

#42 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 09 April 2016 - 07:40 PM

Can you add Mario Lopez too?

 

Who is that?



#43 Z-X

Z-X

    Optimistic

  • Builder
  • 620 posts
  • minecraft:
    zombieassasin417

Posted 17 April 2016 - 11:02 PM

I honestly don't really like any of the choices

#44 Trotsky

Trotsky

    The last Brohoof admin

  • Banned
  • 512 posts
  • minecraft:
    HellSteedTrotsky

Posted 18 April 2016 - 04:36 PM

Yay! Trump is tied again... Help make Trump great again!



#45 Princess Unitopia

Princess Unitopia

    Princess of Unitopia

  • Builder
  • 53 posts
  • minecraft:
    Unitopia

Posted 19 April 2016 - 12:21 AM

i vote for no one

ANARCHY!!!



#46 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 19 April 2016 - 01:17 AM

I vote Constitution first.

Hillary has actually violated several federal laws, and needs to be tried for them.

Bernie Sanders is an admitted socialist, and his policies are anti-constitutional.

Trump has made blatantly prejudicial statements, and advocated violence from his supporters against his detractors IN PUBLIC FORUMS!

So far, Cruz seems to be most constitutionally grounded.

I don't know enough about Kaisch to make any comments.

 

This election year is going to be pivotal in the direction this country goes. We need to vote out everyone who has a record of increasing governmental regulation, especially in areas that are in violation of the Bill of Rights specifically, and the Constitution in general. That means removing people like Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Obama, and all their ilk. This means all over the entire the political spectrum from the President down to city councils. The Congress especially needs to be overthrown in this election. As you can tell, I'm not in favor of any party in particular. I stood for 10 years sworn to protect and defend the Constitution against all foes foreign and domestic, and I will hold that oath, even though I'm no longer in the Army. I strongly recommend that no matter your political party affiliations, that everyone here who has the legal right to vote in the US look carefully at all of the candidates available this election and vote in favor of those candidates who best represent the ideals set down in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I highly recommend that everyone refresh their memory by reading the official transcripts of the original texts here. http://www.archives....eclaration.html



#47 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 19 April 2016 - 02:21 AM

I vote Constitution first.

Hillary has actually violated several federal laws, and needs to be tried for them.

Bernie Sanders is an admitted socialist, and his policies are anti-constitutional.

Trump has made blatantly prejudicial statements, and advocated violence from his supporters against his detractors IN PUBLIC FORUMS!

So far, Cruz seems to be most constitutionally grounded.

I don't know enough about Kaisch to make any comments.

 

This election year is going to be pivotal in the direction this country goes. We need to vote out everyone who has a record of increasing governmental regulation, especially in areas that are in violation of the Bill of Rights specifically, and the Constitution in general. That means removing people like Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Obama, and all their ilk. This means all over the entire the political spectrum from the President down to city councils. The Congress especially needs to be overthrown in this election. As you can tell, I'm not in favor of any party in particular. I stood for 10 years sworn to protect and defend the Constitution against all foes foreign and domestic, and I will hold that oath, even though I'm no longer in the Army. I strongly recommend that no matter your political party affiliations, that everyone here who has the legal right to vote in the US look carefully at all of the candidates available this election and vote in favor of those candidates who best represent the ideals set down in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I highly recommend that everyone refresh their memory by reading the official transcripts of the original texts here. http://www.archives....eclaration.html

 

Finally, an actual smart comment here! 

 

Although I have to disagree: Obama was actually a great President, and Sanders will be an even better President. [Hell yeah, democratic {adj. by the people} socialism {n. for the people}!]

 

But about government regulation, I think the government should be expanded TO A DEGREE. Like, we can't let the big businesses and Wall Street stick their greedy noses in the government's stuff and in elections. That's actually very unconstitutional, and not what the ideas of America are about. Trump and Hillary should be dumped, yes, because Hillary is subservient to Wall Street and the corporations, and Trump is... *sigh* But progressives like Sanders are really the best thing for our country. 

 

Sometimes, old ideas need to be overthrown and replaced with better and more progressive ones. Even ones that we've known for a while. [COUGH COUGH SECOND F*CKING AMENDMENT COUGH COUGH] This is why I support Sanders so much. He challenges the old ideas of America, and wants to reform everything for future generations. He's an underdog. 

 

And remember that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren't perfect. Way back when, the Constitution had the infamous Three-Fifths Clause where "other persons" - including African Americans - were only considered three-fifths of a person, including taxation, representation, voting, and so on. Yes, that's been reformed, and we don't support it anymore, but still. The Constitution isn't perfect, and neither is the Bill of Rights [MORE COUGHING ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT]. There's still a lot to reform.

 

Basically, progress comes when we change the way we think. Maybe the famous documents that are part of our infrastructure need to change too.


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 19 April 2016 - 02:21 AM.


#48 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 19 April 2016 - 04:56 AM

First and foremost:

The Second Amendment provides us with the legal protection to support and defend EVERY other right that we have. The correct context of it is in the Declaration of Independence,

 

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

If we allow the seminal right to bear arms to be stripped away from us, then we are left with no protection should the government begin stripping away all of the rest of our rights. That process has already begun with many laws that limit, and alter the exercise of our rights in many areas, and the door has been swung wide with the enactment of the "patriot act", which already allows certain degrees of search and seizure without warrants, or due process, as well as allowing monitoring of private communications without warrant or due process.

Expanding government to keep "big business" in line sounds good on the surface, but there is not a politician in Washington DC that doesn't have large stakes in big business in a very personal way, to include owning large corporations, or controlling stock therein. Further, large corporations that aren't owned directly in part or whole by political insiders make massive "campaign contributions" to all politicians on both sides of the aisle (including Sanders and Obama), to get policies that favor them enacted. The only way to suppress that kind of activity, and to reduce and even eliminate the kind of corporate corruption you're referring to is to reduce the restrictions and regulations that the government has already enacted. Example: during the 1980s, despite massive objections, the republican controlled congress at the insistence of Pres. Regan removed the air-fare restrictions on all commercial airlines. Contrary to the predicted price gouging that opponents insisted would occur, the airlines began to drop prices in what came to be known as the price wars. Air travel hit an all time low in decades because of reduced restrictions. Those airlines that raised prices went out of business, or were bought out by other airlines (Pan Am, Continental, etc.) By reducing regulation, there is a multi-tiered positive result. First, free-market forces naturally drive competition, by allowing supply and demand to affect the economy, and to "punish" companies with bad practices, such as price gouging, poor financial responsibility, and bad ethical practices by forcing them to change, or driving them out of business. Second, with a more enlightened public, consumers will buy from companies that are more environmentally friendly, forcing other companies to adopt more ecologically sound practices. Third, it will free up millions of tax dollars from unnecessary regulatory agencies, allowing the government to cut spending without cutting necessary services.

Just to clarify, the movement that call themselves progressives are exactly socialists. Remember that it was the National Socialist party that empowered Adolf Hitler to create his police state. These "progressive" ideas are not nearly progressive. This is the same kind of ploy that the "Bolsheviks" (translates as the many or majority) used to bring themselves to power. Use a name that inspires confidence to win over people who aren't really looking at the driving values of the party. The driving values of the progressives are essentially this: take power from companies, and place all financial power and political power in the hands of the government. Remove weapons from the hands of private citizens, and arm the police state. Establish camps to house and eliminate those who are opposed to the government (check out the national healthcare program; it includes the legal establishment of "FEMA" camps on military bases, as well as placing orders for mass-burial caskets for delivery to military bases, as well as authorizing the euthenasia of people who are "a burden on the medical system"). No, Bernie Sanders isn't progressive. He's just another socialist with plans to dominate the United States and establish a police state, by eliminating the Constitution.

For the record, the "other persons" you're referring to was specifically people who didn't own land within the borders of the United States, which at the time was a requirement to vote. The Constitution never specifies race, religion, or gender in regards to what their status is for representation or voting rights. When the right to vote was extended to all naturalized citizens, the 3/5 was overruled.

Now, as to the democratic, that is actually a fallacy. This nation is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. That means that as a republic, we are represented by people who we elect to enact laws and policies that they believe are in the best interest of the public. A democracy is quite literally majority rules, which historically is an unstable political system, as we can see with the fall of every democratic nation in history. Socialism on the other hand simply doesn't work as a political system. It is derived from Marxism, upon which communism was also based, but both are inherently flawed, and result in an over-powered political machine that easily enacts tyranny on all of the people that they are claiming to support. See: National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, and USSR; See Also Communist China.

 

Now, I'm not saying the Constitution and Bill of Rights are perfect. After all, if they were perfect they would have been written in a manner that makes misinterpretation impossible, and would have explained the intent with equal clarity. They are, however; the most stable and solid foundation that any government can be founded on. So much so that several countries since have based their transition from monarchies to representative governments on our own Constitution. There is no law that better emphasizes the rights of the people governed thereby, as well as clearly laying out the responsibilities and limits of the government. They have stood the test of time, and this nation's government has remained stable far longer than any other system of government. No other nation, no matter how old can boast longer periods free from internal conflict that the United States. During the height of monarchies and empires, every succession resulted in bloody conflict within or from without in every nation. Here alone, under the Constitution has the nation and government remained stable with only a single internal war, which was resolved with the reuniting of the opposing sides. We alone measure our wars by protecting ourselves or our allies, rather than by what people head the government. The Constitution of the United States has stood the test of time, and proven its value. Alterations to it are possible, by means that were already laid down in the Constitution itself. There is no part of the original Bill of Rights that is no longer valid today. If anything, it is even more important now, as removing even one of those rights opens the door to removing EVERY right with which we "were endowed by their creator".



#49 R9000

R9000

    Pegasus Engineer

  • Admin
  • 685 posts
  • minecraft:
    R9000

Posted 19 April 2016 - 06:43 PM

Now, I'm not saying the Constitution and Bill of Rights are perfect. After all, if they were perfect they would have been written in a manner that makes misinterpretation impossible, and would have explained the intent with equal clarity. They are, however; the most stable and solid foundation that any government can be founded on.

 

I don't think you can make that claim. To do so would need you to know every possible outcome of every possible foundational document. Not to mention that it's not possible to quantify it against that of other countries on a large scale, because each has a completely different socio-economic situation, and completely different resources and neighbours.



#50 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 19 April 2016 - 08:00 PM

Like every other country, when ours was young, it went through many rapid changes, socio-economically, territorially, with changes in both resources and neighbors repeatedly, yet remained stable. It was attacked by neighbors, it was weakened by a civil war, the likes of which no nation has seen before or since in both size and brutality, yet stood firm. It grants the legal means to peacefully overthrow the entirety of the existing political representatives every 8 years through a process of national elections, which stagger the changing of the guard in such a way that even during a political revolution, the nation's government remains stable, and functional. It safeguards the rights of the citizens, while giving very specific limits and responsibilities to the government, and separates the three critical powers of the government into different branches that each can supersede the others when called for. Functionally, there is no better pattern. The one great weakness in the Constitution is that it was written in a style of English, that while correct and clear to any who have studied the archaic forms and grammar, can be easily misinterpreted by an average person, because of the radical changes to the structure, style, and manner of speech in modern English.


Edited by frost73ite, 19 April 2016 - 08:01 PM.


#51 R9000

R9000

    Pegasus Engineer

  • Admin
  • 685 posts
  • minecraft:
    R9000

Posted 19 April 2016 - 08:35 PM

I think you're overselling your nation just a teensy bit here, no offense.



#52 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 19 April 2016 - 08:52 PM

None taken. I'm sure you're equally proud of yours.



#53 R9000

R9000

    Pegasus Engineer

  • Admin
  • 685 posts
  • minecraft:
    R9000

Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:43 PM

None taken. I'm sure you're equally proud of yours.

 

Eh, I wish. Sure, I like a lot of things, but Britain has a lot of things I don't like about it too, including a lack of investment into technology.


Edited by R9000, 19 April 2016 - 09:43 PM.


#54 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:46 PM

No one's country is perfect at all. I wish we would get back to funding stem cell research again. But over-religious/conservatives say it's "against God". Same with Planned Parenthood and stuff.


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 19 April 2016 - 09:46 PM.


#55 R9000

R9000

    Pegasus Engineer

  • Admin
  • 685 posts
  • minecraft:
    R9000

Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:51 PM

No one's country is perfect at all. I wish we would get back to funding stem cell research again. But over-religious/conservatives say it's "against God". Same with Planned Parenthood and stuff.

 

Well, it's difficult ethically too. you've gotta be super careful when you're messing with the genes of something that could one day become a human. Anyway, sorry, I'm driving us off-track here.



#56 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:57 PM

Who said artificial humans are bad? But yeah, anyway... 

 

Think about this for a second. The candidates will serve who they receive their donations from. 

 

Hillary gets her funding from the big banks, so she'll serve the banks.

 

Trump gets his funding from himself, so he'll serve himself [which is a terrifying thought].

 

Now tell me, who does Sanders get his funding from? 

 

Bernie-Sanders-at-Portland-campaign-rall

 

Yeah. That's right. Them. They're who he'll serve. Keep that in mind.


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 19 April 2016 - 09:57 PM.


#57 Rarara

Rarara

    meme

  • Builder
  • 532 posts
  • minecraft:
    Maud_Pie

Posted 19 April 2016 - 11:22 PM

-snip-

https://yourlogicalf...com/false-cause



#58 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 19 April 2016 - 11:31 PM

 

Oh, please. He gets ALL of his donations from the people. It's his policy to refuse big bank money and super PACs. And look at everything he's fighting for! PROVE to me that he's been lying this whole time. He's been fighting for the same things throughout his life. He marched on Washington D.C. during the Civil Rights movement and he attended Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech, he dropped some forceful words on Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of he Federal Reserve, and he voted against the war in Iraq. He's an actual good guy!


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 19 April 2016 - 11:44 PM.


#59 Doctor Charcoal

Doctor Charcoal

    Something something charcoal

  • Builder
  • 528 posts
  • minecraft:
    DoctorCharcoal

Posted 19 April 2016 - 11:46 PM

It's like saying Andrew Jackson was a good guy because he 'served' the people by removing tons of Native Americans from land going-to-be conquered by the US on the continent. Or how Andrew Johnson (yes, another person, not Jackson) removed rights from African Americans right after they had gotten freedom during the Civil War. No one is the good guy just because he accepts money from the people, or attended a speech. And those two people I just mentioned were democrats. In order to be legit in presidency, you gotta have a bit of realism. Taking down the majority of big businesses isn't going to help the economy, or increase American education standards. It's just going to cause protest and unrest.



#60 R9000

R9000

    Pegasus Engineer

  • Admin
  • 685 posts
  • minecraft:
    R9000

Posted 19 April 2016 - 11:51 PM

*snip*

 

I think we can just all agree that Cave Johnson should be president, really.



#61 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 19 April 2016 - 11:55 PM

Uh, did you just gloss over what I said here:

 

He's been fighting for the same things throughout his life. He marched on Washington D.C. during the Civil Rights movement and he attended Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech, he dropped some forceful words on Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of he Federal Reserve, and he voted against the war in Iraq. 

 

 

And that was in the past. The Democratic Party has learned to be tolerant since then. I can't really say the same for the Republicans, though. 

 

And taking down the big businesses isn't shutting them down completely, it's locking them out of the government so they can't buy our elections anymore. Ever heard of Citizens United? The disastrous Supreme Court decision that granted those companies influence in the voting process with their super PACs? That's what Hillary uses. 

 

I admit that I am biased. Probably unfairly. But you know what? It's kind of easy to be unfairly biased when the opposite party wants to deny my sister [a pansexual] her rights and freedoms. So there. That's why I criticize the Republicans so much.


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 19 April 2016 - 11:56 PM.


#62 Rarara

Rarara

    meme

  • Builder
  • 532 posts
  • minecraft:
    Maud_Pie

Posted 19 April 2016 - 11:58 PM

words

Pointing out a blatant fallacy doesn't equate to arguing any of those things



#63 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 20 April 2016 - 12:00 AM

Pointing out a blatant fallacy doesn't equate to arguing any of those things

 

It might help if you actually put what I was saying so I could argue my side.

 

And how do you know it's a fallacy, anyway? Do you have any proof?


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 20 April 2016 - 12:02 AM.


#64 The Clef

The Clef

    Go fuck yourself clover

  • Builder
  • 164 posts
  • minecraft:
    Cleeeeef

Posted 20 April 2016 - 12:32 AM

If bernie gets elected he's probably going to die in office of old age.



#65 Rarara

Rarara

    meme

  • Builder
  • 532 posts
  • minecraft:
    Maud_Pie

Posted 20 April 2016 - 12:34 AM

Correlation does not imply causation.


Edited by Rarara, 20 April 2016 - 12:35 AM.


#66 Z-X

Z-X

    Optimistic

  • Builder
  • 620 posts
  • minecraft:
    zombieassasin417

Posted 20 April 2016 - 02:40 PM

Who said artificial humans are bad? But yeah, anyway...


For one it's against typical ethics, and in a sense it's "playing God" or if you don't want to bring that into it, some could argue that its an act against nature


(Quote broke on mobile)

#67 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 20 April 2016 - 03:09 PM

While the majority of his funding comes from his campaign source directly, he has accepted money from super PACs. Now, I'm not saying that the relatively small donations (in comparison) make him inherently untrustworthy (that I blame on his being a self-proclaimed socialist, and the fact that he wants to take away our Constitutional rights). Look at the names of the PACs that he took funding from, though. Each and every one is a group that is a "progressive" (socialist) organization, meaning that in addition to the policies he wants to place, his own admission to being a socialist, and the kind of political values he espouses; his entire aim is to overthrow the Constitution in favor of a socialist government. This is not a candidate "of the people", but against the Constitution.

http://www.opensecre...tsidegroups.php

Sanders Collective Actions PAC SuperPAC $8,795 Sanders Progressive Voters of America Leadership PAC $23,421 Sanders Feel Bern SuperPAC $261,214 Sanders Bernie 2016 Campaign $139,810,841 Sanders BillionairesForBernie.org SuperPAC $0 Sanders Las Cruces for Bernie SuperPAC $2,170 Sanders Progressive Kick SuperPAC $308,417

Of course, all of this is nearly irrelevant, since Clinton won the New York primary in a veritable landslide yesterday, which means that unless Sanders wins ALL of the remaining states, he'll not have enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination.

 

I hope and pray that we elect representatives at all levels this election that will take the nation back to its roots in the Constitution.



#68 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 21 April 2016 - 02:47 AM

...Dude, you do realize that the original Constitution supported slavery, right? 

 

Prepare yourself for my probably final post on this entire thread. 

 

I just don't understand why people are so afraid of socialism. Yes, it's been used badly in the past [I know you're thinking of Stalin], but it was warped to suit the ruling elite and not the people, who it was originally intended for. Democratic socialism is, according to Wikipedia: 

 


Democratic socialism is distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and from social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state. The distinction with the former is made on the basis of the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century, while the distinction with the latter is made on the basis that democratic socialism is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while social democracy is not. That is, whereas social democrats only seek to "humanize" capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized", and that it must therefore ultimately be replaced with socialism.

 

 

 

And listen to how Karl Marx, the founder of Marxism [the predecessor to socialism and communism] says about it: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." That means everyone works to the best of their ability to provide people with the things they need. Doesn't that sound reasonable? 

 

This is why democratic socialism is a better alternative to capitalism, because as long as capitalism exists, there will always be people who will be rich and those that are too poor.

 
Take for example, the game of Monopoly. The goal of the game is to make more money and make your enemies poor. After the game is won, everything goes back in the box. Is it really worth it?
 
Capitalist societies also tend to have more crime than socialist countries, (no, it's not because of the threat of getting shot) because everyone in socialism is required to work and everyone earns a living. This means there are no poor people, and since most crimes are resulted by poverty, then crime is reduced. Also people are not too rich, which means reductions in organized crime.
 
Take for example, when China turned Communist to Capitalist, the crime rates increased and there were mobs.
 
Now then, let's also take into consideration the rich companies and banks. It's no secret that these monopolies buy their politicians and fund their campaigns. After all, a politician can't really fund himself. They also make profits off of people from other countries using cheap manual labor. These people don't earn enough and are often earning slave wages, and that is a terrible thing. 
 
Also, as long as there are big rich companies in capitalism, they will tend to find a way to make money off your problems. For example, it is because of the oil companies that we don't have solar powered cars, because they buy patents to such things and keep everyone else from getting a free source energy.

 

Doesn't that seem wrong in some way? I mean, forget about the Constitution for a second and try to take a look at the larger picture. Our economy is rigged. People are suffering because of a broken economic system.

 

On to the Second Amendment, which is kind of a dangerous part of the Constitution. The Second Amendment says "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What that means is that in order for a state to remain secure, there should be a guard of sorts in place that consists of the people, who have access to weapons.

 

Doesn't that sound familiar? Like, maybe, the police force? Or the National Guard? Or the military? Who are all made up of the people, you know. 

 

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have weapons, but having a guy walk around in a supermarket with his big-ass machine gun slung over his shoulder is kind of absolutely insane. The lethal weapons should be entrusted to the authorities. The people, however, should have non-lethals, like tasers or pepper spray or just really big sticks. This reduces the chance of tragedies like shootings happening. If someone wants to own a lethal weapon, like a gun, they should go through a background check to make sure that they're mentally stable enough to use it properly. This way, no one's infringing on your rights, no more tragedies happen, and everyone's happy. 

 

That's the end of my Second Amendment rant.

 

Now, tell me, is getting money out of politics, trusting science/addressing climate change as a threat and not a punchline, ending unfair pay, creating a livable minimum wage, creating new jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, getting off fossil fuels, making college affordable, expanding Social Security, enacting single-payer healthcare, ending systemic racism, and closing tax loopholes... Are ANY of those things infringing or overthrowing Constitutional rights? Because, if anything, about half of those are additions to our rights! And the other half is actually attempting to make our country better after the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush! You have to look at the bigger picture here.

 

This system isn't without flaws, obviously. Which system is? But right now, this system seems- no, that's not even up for discussion. - IS the best system to repair a damaged America. You can call me idealistic, naive, etc. But if you take a close look at this, you should know that this is the best option, that Sanders is the best option. Everyone else is either taken by the banks, themselves, or want to actually remove Constitutional rights, if that's what you're so worried about. [Donald Trump doesn't like freedom of speech.]

 

And that's all I have to say on this. I'm not gonna say any more, because I want to let other people share their opinions and such. If you do want to continue discussing this with me, do so in a private message. Thank you for indulging me!


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 21 April 2016 - 02:48 AM.


#69 jimme neutron corndog

jimme neutron corndog

    Is a woman

  • Builder
  • 1822 posts
  • minecraft:
    Sierif

Posted 21 April 2016 - 02:54 AM

i voted for hillary to piss people off, logging off for a pnother month, bye

this thread is dumb

Edited by jimme neutron corndog, 21 April 2016 - 02:54 AM.


#70 Doctor Charcoal

Doctor Charcoal

    Something something charcoal

  • Builder
  • 528 posts
  • minecraft:
    DoctorCharcoal

Posted 21 April 2016 - 03:15 AM

I can see why you would think a socialism is good. But for the United States? There are many examples of current world socialist countries (like China, or Singapore) which have a semi or full socialist economy, but are barely democratic, utilizing a one-party state. Who knows? Bernie Sanders may turn into some full fledged dictator. If you take a look at a conflicted history, take someone for example Maximilian Robespierre, he showed the people he could fix France, only to cause thousands of people to die by guillotine on purpose.

 

Plus, there is no real point to establish something like a socialist state. To have the government control even part of the economy is just asking for our freedom of a free market to go away. It's basically making things 'better' for the people, at the people's expense. If Bernie Sanders was elected, I would bet you a lot that many of my personal friends would lose a lot of their stuff due to a loss of wealth, just because they're wealthy. In fact, even I may lose stuff too, only because I live in a wealthy town. And that's only because Bernie wants to tax the wealthy just because they're wealthy. It's like taking candy from a baby,  and giving it to someone else just because they don't have some. I mean, really? Doesn't that sound unfair? To make everything free, like healthcare and high quality education, I bet we'll have even more deaths and a poor education because it takes a lot to get that sort of service, and giving it to everyone would heavily burden the economy even more than it has. The rich can't pay for everything, you know. And imagine how many people would take advantage of that service? I could do hardly anything and still get a free education and healthcare. That seems very flawed in my book.

 

If no one gets a quality education, then we won't be able to have good future leaders. If we can't have that, then national unrest may happen when people start figuring out they can't use things anymore. I know I'm going a bit off topic, but the chain of events will just lead to someone rising up and taking over the country as a dictator, or just having someone revert things back to capitalism. It's something that's been working for over 200 years, and something I doubt many people would want to get rid off just because not everyone gets university education.



#71 UltimateDemon

UltimateDemon

    "Pen-Ultimate," that is.

  • Retired Admin
  • 736 posts
  • minecraft:
    UltimateDemon

Posted 21 April 2016 - 04:18 AM

You can't stump the Trump. ;)

#72 Trotsky

Trotsky

    The last Brohoof admin

  • Banned
  • 512 posts
  • minecraft:
    HellSteedTrotsky

Posted 21 April 2016 - 07:24 AM

Let's bump the Trump! *boop*



#73 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 21 April 2016 - 01:27 PM

I'm going to set aside Trump and Sanders for now, because I've said enough about them both. Let's focus on the most important part of this whole discussion. The Constitution. There are a few points that many, especially those who see socialism as a solution need to understand.

 

First, The ideal of socialism as originally intended is for everyone to give generously to each-other such that there are no unfulfilled needs. This kind of system only would work in a purely altruistic society. Specifically a perfect society. There is no record in earth's history of this system EVER working. Why? The answer is simple. People are rationally self-interested. In other words, they seek their own welfare and benefit first, but are usually cautious about how they seek their welfare, aware that if you take too much without giving back, you will loose it all in the long run.  Socialism at it's heart assumes divine nature almost as much as pure philosophical anarchy, which is not consistent with humanity. When the government takes more away from you, the more you've achieved through your hard work, the more embittered it will make you, and the less reason those who hadn't worked hard, thus have nothing, will have to work. This is the great flaw of socialism. It doesn't work when it is enforced by the government, only when it is voluntarily enacted by the society as a whole. When the government does it, the work ethic of the entire society is destroyed, because there is no longer any reason to strive for achievement.

 

Second, and most important. The context of the Second Amendment is the Declaration of Independence, and the Revolutionary War; a war fought with the weapons that the citizens owned against the full might of the existing government's militia. The founding fathers of this nation saw the need for a nation to possess a military force, yet saw first hand how that military could be used to oppress the citizens of the very nation they were meant to protect. For that reason, they wrote the Second Amendment, to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT. For reference see my link above to the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Remember, that the weapons used to wage the Revolutionary War were the most advanced weapons of the time. A bunch of farmers with pitchforks didn't overthrow the oppressive government, but a bunch of pioneers with the latest weapons known to man.

 

Third, a point I can't believe I have to respond to. The Constitution didn't "support" slavery. It tolerated it, because literally half of the country at the time was practicing it. A historical fact is appropriate here. The northern colonies, and their representatives, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Addams, and Samuel Addams all wanted to abolish slavery with the establishment of the Constitution, but the southern Colonies objected, and refused to sign, until a compromise was reached. Specifically, the southern states, who's economy was reliant on slavery were permitted to maintain slaves for 100 years, to give them time to find means to reduce their reliance on slave labor, then the transition to a slave free nation would be complete. Now, if you look 100 years later, a rather large war was fought, with slavery being a key point of disagreement.

 

Oh, and please use a more standard formatting in your posts. The formatting you're using is hard on the eyes.



#74 Npaws

Npaws

    And now my watch begins

  • Builder
  • 1821 posts
  • minecraft:
    Npaws

Posted 21 April 2016 - 02:59 PM

If bernie gets elected he's probably going to die in office of old age.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Honestly America needs a president like Trump so that we can finally collapse and have to realize how fucking stupid we are as a nation. Maybe we'll learn from it.

Edited by Nautolan, 21 April 2016 - 03:00 PM.


#75 R9000

R9000

    Pegasus Engineer

  • Admin
  • 685 posts
  • minecraft:
    R9000

Posted 21 April 2016 - 05:06 PM

Honestly America needs a president like Trump so that we can finally collapse and have to realize how fucking stupid we are as a nation. Maybe we'll learn from it.

 

If that is the case, I still don't want it, because I'd rather the country with the sum of the arms budget of the next five countries didn't explode.



#76 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 22 April 2016 - 04:07 AM

Honestly America needs a president like Trump so that we can finally collapse and have to realize how fucking stupid we are as a nation. Maybe we'll learn from it.

If you dislike the country so much, remember one simple fact. Nobody is keeping you from moving out.

Yes, as a nation, we have been making a lot of stupid mistakes lately, but that doesn't mean we need to collapse to see the truth. I feel safe to say that the majority actually want to fix the stupidity. The problem is that there isn't a consensus on how to solve it, and as a result, more stupid choices are made that are swinging the pendulum across the political spectrum from worse to the right, and worse to the left. The answer is simple. Go Constitutional, rather than party aligned.



#77 The Clef

The Clef

    Go fuck yourself clover

  • Builder
  • 164 posts
  • minecraft:
    Cleeeeef

Posted 22 April 2016 - 07:53 PM



...Dude, you do realize that the original Constitution supported slavery, right? 

 

Prepare yourself for my probably final post on this entire thread. 

 

I just don't understand why people are so afraid of socialism. Yes, it's been used badly in the past [I know you're thinking of Stalin], but it was warped to suit the ruling elite and not the people, who it was originally intended for. Democratic socialism is, according to Wikipedia: 

 

 

And listen to how Karl Marx, the founder of Marxism [the predecessor to socialism and communism] says about it: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." That means everyone works to the best of their ability to provide people with the things they need. Doesn't that sound reasonable? 

 

This is why democratic socialism is a better alternative to capitalism, because as long as capitalism exists, there will always be people who will be rich and those that are too poor.

 
Take for example, the game of Monopoly. The goal of the game is to make more money and make your enemies poor. After the game is won, everything goes back in the box. Is it really worth it?
 
Capitalist societies also tend to have more crime than socialist countries, (no, it's not because of the threat of getting shot) because everyone in socialism is required to work and everyone earns a living. This means there are no poor people, and since most crimes are resulted by poverty, then crime is reduced. Also people are not too rich, which means reductions in organized crime.
 
Take for example, when China turned Communist to Capitalist, the crime rates increased and there were mobs.
 
Now then, let's also take into consideration the rich companies and banks. It's no secret that these monopolies buy their politicians and fund their campaigns. After all, a politician can't really fund himself. They also make profits off of people from other countries using cheap manual labor. These people don't earn enough and are often earning slave wages, and that is a terrible thing. 
 

You do realize communism was also one of the worst systems ever made? Some of the worst atrocities ever committed were under communist systems, an oppressive state owned economy, very few civil rights and political freedoms, overall oppression. It can never exist without a dictatorship.


Edited by The Clef, 22 April 2016 - 07:59 PM.


#78 Neon

Neon

    Lt. Thunder at your service.

  • Builder
  • 201 posts
  • minecraft:
    kilianke

Posted 22 April 2016 - 08:51 PM

I have noticed something in this thread. You people should be more open-minded and stop relating socialism to the countries where people are worse off than in the west.

Please, let me introduce you to Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland.....

 

People seem to think that ''wealthy pay a higher tax'' means that the wealthy are being sent all the way down the economic classes... they're not, so don't be that greedy with your money.

 

50% tax, low class: 15.000/100*50= 7.500$ tax, 15.000-7.500= 7.500$ left after tax

60% tax, middle class: 40.000/100*60= 24.000$ tax, 40.000-24.000= 16.000$ left after tax

70% tax, high class: 85.000/100*70= 59.500$ tax, 85.000-59.500= 25.500$ left after tax

 

Now, as you see the classes can clearly still be seen, low class still doesnt have an amazing income, but they have free healthcare and such. For the other classes, the middle class has their middle income and the wealthy still make more money a year than the others, while they also are provided with free healthcare. When people have less money you get deflation, which means products become cheaper. So the changes wouldn't be as extreme as you would think. I live in a socialist nation and guess what? Technically nobody is homeless (the government will provide homeless people with a free home), some people live in a cheap social apartment block, others in a normal regular home, and than the filthy rich still being rich as always in their villas, mansions and castles.

 

So all you pro-socialists and anti-socialists, stop only referring to socialism with bad examples, thank you very much.



#79 The Clef

The Clef

    Go fuck yourself clover

  • Builder
  • 164 posts
  • minecraft:
    Cleeeeef

Posted 22 April 2016 - 09:01 PM

I have noticed something in this thread. You people should be more open-minded and stop relating socialism to the countries where people are worse off than in the west.

Please, let me introduce you to Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland.....

 

People seem to think that ''wealthy pay a higher tax'' means that the wealthy are being sent all the way down the economic classes... they're not, so don't be that greedy with your money.

 

50% tax, low class: 15.000/100*50= 7.500$ tax, 15.000-7.500= 7.500$ left after tax

60% tax, middle class: 40.000/100*60= 24.000$ tax, 40.000-24.000= 16.000$ left after tax

70% tax, high class: 85.000/100*70= 59.500$ tax, 85.000-59.500= 25.500$ left after tax

 

Now, as you see the classes can clearly still be seen, low class still doesnt have an amazing income, but they have free healthcare and such. For the other classes, the middle class has their middle income and the wealthy still make more money a year than the others, while they also are provided with free healthcare. When people have less money you get deflation, which means products become cheaper. So the changes wouldn't be as extreme as you would think. I live in a socialist nation and guess what? Technically nobody is homeless (the government will provide homeless people with a free home), some people live in a cheap social apartment block, others in a normal regular home, and than the filthy rich still being rich as always in their villas, mansions and castles.

 

So all you pro-socialists and anti-socialists, stop only referring to socialism with bad examples, thank you very much.

This is where I can agree with socialism, especially with countries like Denmark and Austria.



#80 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 22 April 2016 - 09:43 PM

I have noticed something in this thread. You people should be more open-minded and stop relating socialism to the countries where people are worse off than in the west.

Please, let me introduce you to Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland.....

 

People seem to think that ''wealthy pay a higher tax'' means that the wealthy are being sent all the way down the economic classes... they're not, so don't be that greedy with your money.

 

50% tax, low class: 15.000/100*50= 7.500$ tax, 15.000-7.500= 7.500$ left after tax

60% tax, middle class: 40.000/100*60= 24.000$ tax, 40.000-24.000= 16.000$ left after tax

70% tax, high class: 85.000/100*70= 59.500$ tax, 85.000-59.500= 25.500$ left after tax

 

Now, as you see the classes can clearly still be seen, low class still doesnt have an amazing income, but they have free healthcare and such. For the other classes, the middle class has their middle income and the wealthy still make more money a year than the others, while they also are provided with free healthcare. When people have less money you get deflation, which means products become cheaper. So the changes wouldn't be as extreme as you would think. I live in a socialist nation and guess what? Technically nobody is homeless (the government will provide homeless people with a free home), some people live in a cheap social apartment block, others in a normal regular home, and than the filthy rich still being rich as always in their villas, mansions and castles.

 

So all you pro-socialists and anti-socialists, stop only referring to socialism with bad examples, thank you very much.

 

Exactly. [And I know I said negative stuff]


Edited by Ignatius of Aetheria, 22 April 2016 - 09:43 PM.


#81 hxfthxft

hxfthxft

    Honest

  • Admin
  • 2650 posts
  • minecraft:
    hxfthxft

Posted 22 April 2016 - 09:44 PM

Yes



#82 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 23 April 2016 - 12:30 AM

I can tell you plain and simple that if the Government was taking 50% of what I bring in a month, there is no way on God's green earth that I would last a month. Basic bills (electric, gas, water, food) amount to 65% of my income. That is the same for anyone in the "lower" class. What in the world does the government need 50% of the income of the public for anyway? To fund more useless programs designed to regulate more and more of what the citizens do or "need from the government"; in other words to make sure nobody is skipping out on paying the MASSIVELY high tax rate, which wouldn't be needed in the first place if the government was reduced in size, and the excessive regulations on things that are basic rights were removed. Tax should be a flat 10%, nothing higher, no exceptions, no deductions. As it currently stands, paying 2% on their income, the highest 2% of the wealthy in the country pay nearly 90% of the national income tax.

 

Mind, I am in no way interested in being greedy with my money, even if I had enough to be greedy about. What I have a big problem with is the idea that those who have worked hard to get where they are will be penalized for making more money than others, while the poorest people; those on welfare, who refuse to get a job, because they'll loose the free income that the government is handing them with the tax dollars of those who are busting their backside day in and day out to scrape together enough that they can handle the 27% tax rate they're currently paying as the lower, and lower-middle class tax brackets.

 

I don't disagree with the objections that the socialist groups are making. I disagree with their solutions. The solution is never bigger government and more regulation. The solution is never force people to give up what they worked hard to earn. The solution is to abolish the welfare state, and reinvest in the economy by allowing companies more freedom in how they do business, and let natural market forces of a capitalist market to drive companies that won't pay a decent wage, or charge more for their products or services out of business. Yes, such companies going out of business will initially cost people jobs, however; the companies that are stronger, because of good business practices will be able to expand because of the increased market share, thus will expand, hire more employees, and strengthen the economy, while raising the standard of living all around.


Edited by frost73ite, 23 April 2016 - 12:33 AM.


#83 Neon

Neon

    Lt. Thunder at your service.

  • Builder
  • 201 posts
  • minecraft:
    kilianke

Posted 23 April 2016 - 01:07 AM

A debate? This will be interesting, as long as we can have a normal debate ofcourse. This includes listening to each other, respecting opinions and ofcourse preventing of high tensions.

 

First of all, high tax rates are because you need quite some stuff to maintain a country, especially one the size of the United States. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, welfare, police & defense, city & state funding, the environment, technological advancement, business subsidies, monumental maintenance, government administration and much more. You pay money, but it wouldn't be much different than paying a healthcare bill, for you would be able to get healthcare at any given point. Same for studying: money provided by the government and students being provided free travelling with public transport for their studies. And so on, it would meet everything a human would need in order to be satisfied about life.

 

Nobody likes paying tax, even me, a democratic socialist. But think about it this way: would you like extra money so you could buy that extra-expensive car, or do you want to help a poor someone pay for his surgery to remove a life-threatening tumor? And when you need help provided by a government facility, other people would do the same for you. It basically compensates. And of course, people who earn money, want to keep their hard-earned cash for themselves. But as I have shown in my previous calculations, someone with a high income will still have a high income compared to the other economic classes below them, and I am not going to say making all classes have a comparable wage should happen. No economic classes means a collapse of the economy.

 

Giving up the welfare state? That's exactly what we need to maintain! The welfare state in the Netherlands (poldermodel) is considered to be the cause of the Dutch economic miracle of the 90's. This means that even though having a welfare state costs money, it also improves the economy, because it gives the people and business owners a secure feeling. Welfare is something that should never disappear. My mother for example. She has a job now, for which she had been looking for a long time. She lost her previous job due to the company going down in the 2012 economic recession. My mom used the money from the welfare checks to maintain the family while she looked for a job, because my dad recently decided to work as an independent agent in Germany, which still kind of had to settle down. In this case, the welfare was used for good purposes. Although your worry with welfare, I'm not gonna deny the system doesn't get abused, so there needs to be strict regulations and the person receiving welfare must be able to prove they are looking for a job. If they can't? No welfare, sorry.

 

And finally, the international market. Socialism and a free market economy are things that you wouldn't expect to go together, but they can be combined without problems. This is the case in the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. None of these countries are bad countries, and score well in most aspects that include the economy and social policies. Giving control to businesses is one hell of a horrible idea. We don't want western countries to turn into Asian-like mass production sweatshop countries where bad wages are being paid and human rights aren't respected just because the business owner wants to make money? The government should be there to take care of the population of the country and also protect it's citizens from big companies looking to exploit resources and human beings just for the sake of making money.

 

Looking forward to hear how you think about my statements.



#84 UltimateDemon

UltimateDemon

    "Pen-Ultimate," that is.

  • Retired Admin
  • 736 posts
  • minecraft:
    UltimateDemon

Posted 23 April 2016 - 01:52 PM

So many walls of text. Damn, everyone's antsy to talk politics.

#85 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 23 April 2016 - 09:56 PM

So many walls of text. Damn, everyone's antsy to talk politics.

 

I think I've unleashed a sh*tstorm here.



#86 Ignatius of Aetheria

Ignatius of Aetheria

    Things! Excitement! Robots!

  • Pony
  • 105 posts
  • minecraft:
    The_ToaIgnikaKid

Posted 26 April 2016 - 10:21 PM

So it appears that Ted Cruz and John Kasich have joined forces to prevent Trump from getting the nomination.



#87 Squint

Squint

    Zzz

  • Builder
  • 4956 posts
  • minecraft:
    Squu

Posted 26 April 2016 - 11:08 PM

did you know that trickle down economics doesn't work dumbass



#88 Super Ultra Uber C00l Dood

Super Ultra Uber C00l Dood

    ▒▒▒▒▒██ ██▒▒██▒▒██▒▒██

  • Pony
  • 955 posts
  • minecraft:
    StateFarmJoe

Posted 27 April 2016 - 06:21 PM

the zodiac killer's running for president?

#89 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 30 April 2016 - 06:21 PM

First, apologies for not posting sooner, I've been extraordinarily busy lately.

Second, Squint, there is no need to resort to name calling. All that does is make it look like you're either too immature, or unintelligent to adequately express your views. Although you are right "trickle down" economics doesn't work. Capitalism on the other hand does. It has functioned quite well for thousands of years, though it does have rather severe drawbacks.

 

First, let's look at the stability of the economy. Capitalism will only work for the people who live in a capitalist society that have a high to medium work ethic. Those who have little or no work ethic will be doomed to being poor and to suffer in a purely capitalist economy. There is no solution for this in a purely capitalist economy, so organizations or individuals would have to assist those who are unwilling to put in enough effort to better their financial standing, and thus their quality of life. Generally, those in political power who have an appropriate concern for the welfare of the needy see this inequality of financial situation, and wish to help them. I have no problem with the idea of the government offering them assistance when there is a need.

The problem arises when those who are poor as a direct result of their own choices, and a less than satisfactory work ethic (speaking economically) are granted the funds they need to live a normal healthy life, but do not require some manner of return in the form of goods or services. People who are poor as a direct result of lacking adequate work ethic, who are granted money, etc. without something being asked in return are thereby rewarded for their failure, and they then continue to choose the same pattern, working only the minimum amount to continue receiving their welfare check.

The solution to this is actually obvious. No matter the reason for the need, those who receive funds or food for welfare must be required to do work for a number of hours equal to the amount received. There are so many things that can be done in the community, for the state, and nationally that there are an inadequate number of workers to perform. For example; an average drive down a major highway, or city street reveals a large amount of litter strewn across miles. Cleaning this garbage from the roadways as their labor for benefits received would simultaneously give them their needed benefits, increase their self-esteem (because they are earning their living), and beautify the area (while simultaneously helping the environment).

Before you say that picking up trash is demeaning, consider that working for a legitimate paycheck is better than being a burden on society, while not having enough to meet your needs. Additionally, the intent here is to get them off of welfare in the first place, so doing a job that is unpleasant, while earning the money needed to support your family gives you reason to find better standard employment. Oh, and if picking up trash is demeaning, tell your local waste disposal people that they're being demeaned by collecting the garbage off your curb every week.

Another benefit of a work-welfare system, rather than a welfare state is that the funds used to pay out welfare checks under the current system would be going to exactly the same place, while simultaneously providing funding for the added labor needed to fill in the gaps in the existing infrastructure. This frees funds in infrastructure to improve all other areas, or to shuffle the extra funds to other areas of the national economy that are lacking what they need. For reference, shortly after WWII, the federal government initiated a project of this kind that provided employment for thousands of unemployed including returning veterans, and as a result we have things like the interstate system, and Hoover's Dam. This vastly improved the infrastructure of the country, as well as providing employment, and saving tax dollars. In all, it was a huge boost to the national economy.

 

I do not believe that socialism, or socialist countries are "bad". Socialism has its merits, and can work short term, along side a free market economy. The problems arise through the natural tendency of humans to seek personal gain, to elevate their current standard of living. I approve of solving the problems that socialism is meant to solve, however; because humans are rationally self-interested, they will seek to elevate their social and financial position, either for their own benefit, that of their family, or simply for power (political or otherwise). Socialism can not work indefinitely in any society where people are not more concerned for the welfare of their neighbors above that of themselves. History proves this all the time. It is the reason that it has failed in several forms around the world.

Keep in mind that socialism is a term that covers the broad spectrum of a specific socio-economic ideology. Within this spectrum you will find communism, which we have seen fail around the world, except where there is a dictatorship in place to enforce it, using the military as an internal police force to make certain that everyone is following the laws that hold it in place. This is actually contrary to what Marx originally believed would happen. He believed that once the wealth was redistributed, so everyone was equal, the interim government would fall away, and the entire society would live in an economy that is based on the ideals of anarchy. This can not happen, however; because taking from those who have worked hard to earn what they have, to give to those who have less breeds resentment, contempt and bitterness. Thus, once the government falls away, those who had will take back what was taken from them. For socialism to work indefinitely, it must be completely voluntary.

There are ways to get the results desired from socialism without the government forcing the inherently flawed system on the people. First, the work-welfare system I outlined above, which would help improve the work ethic of those who are poor because they lack it, while providing a boost to the self-esteem of those who need welfare because of events outside their own control (such as layoffs). Second, remove the overly complex income tax laws, and simplify it to a straight 10% across all income levels, as well as removing tax "breaks", penalties, brackets (which hurt those in the bottom of each bracket, while benefiting those in the top), etc.

Corporate taxes can be used to great effect by offering companies (large and small) breaks for improvements in all kinds of areas that are regulated. For example, companies who have environmental practices that exceed the minimum requirements of the EPA could be given a tax credit in proportion to the degree to which they exceed the regulations. Likewise, companies could be given tax breaks for increasing their starting wages across the board. Such tax breaks would benefit everyone, because they would give companies direct financial rewards for their efforts, so would gain in the long and short run. A starting wage tax break would eliminate the need for a minimum wage law, as companies that pay less to starting employees would be loosing money, thus limiting their ability to put funds into their growth, etc. while those who pay more to starting employees would have more, allowing them to hire more people, and put more money into their growth (which ultimately leads to more jobs). Naturally, those are only two examples of how properly applied taxation can improve the economy without excessive regulations and government intervention.

 

I could continue, but I believe that I've given a few legitimate examples of how free market forces and appropriate taxation can be used to improve the economy, as well as the standard of living nationwide (and without the use of trickle-down economics).

 

Ultimately, we should not be looking at other countries to decide how we treat our own people, unless it's to see what is not working, so we can avoid those same pitfalls. We should instead look at our own country, and see what has driven us to be the only world power left. It wasn't socialism, it wasn't dictatorships, it wasn't military might. It was the capitalist economy, as supported by our own Constitutional law. The Constitution was designed with capitalism in mind as the driving economic force. That is the reason the "progressive" socialist movement wants to remove the Bill of Rights, and ultimately void the Constitution. They don't say it out right, but if you look at the policies and laws that they pass that have been gradually infringing on those rights, you can plainly see that they have been doing exactly that. We must preserve our freedoms. That means we must preserve the Constitution and Bill of Rights in their entirety, so that our children and great grand children can enjoy those freedoms enjoyed by our fore-bearers.



#90 Squint

Squint

    Zzz

  • Builder
  • 4956 posts
  • minecraft:
    Squu

Posted 30 April 2016 - 11:48 PM

sry but i'm not gonna read that. go outside man, how long did it take to write that? i respect ur argument but i have things to do you know



#91 Trotsky

Trotsky

    The last Brohoof admin

  • Banned
  • 512 posts
  • minecraft:
    HellSteedTrotsky

Posted 01 May 2016 - 01:06 AM

I'm going to need to get you a bigger soap box...

 

Also dang it Sanders is ahead again.


Edited by Trotsky, 01 May 2016 - 01:06 AM.


#92 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 01 May 2016 - 01:10 AM

sry but i'm not gonna read that. go outside man, how long did it take to write that? i respect ur argument but i have things to do you know

5 minutes, give or take.

 

Ok, stepping down from the soap box.



#93 Squint

Squint

    Zzz

  • Builder
  • 4956 posts
  • minecraft:
    Squu

Posted 01 May 2016 - 01:15 AM

no way you can type 1500 words in 5 mins.



#94 Super Ultra Uber C00l Dood

Super Ultra Uber C00l Dood

    ▒▒▒▒▒██ ██▒▒██▒▒██▒▒██

  • Pony
  • 955 posts
  • minecraft:
    StateFarmJoe

Posted 01 May 2016 - 02:01 AM

no way you can type 1500 words in 5 mins.

 

you'd be surprised.



#95 Trotsky

Trotsky

    The last Brohoof admin

  • Banned
  • 512 posts
  • minecraft:
    HellSteedTrotsky

Posted 01 May 2016 - 02:10 AM

Well I'm far from the fastest writer, but my standard was 600 words per hour so to do 1500 in 5 minutes is definitely a good clip, Of course, anypony can write that much really fast if all they're doing is copy/pasting a party line.



#96 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 01 May 2016 - 02:21 AM

I didn't copy-paste even a single character. All of that is straight from my own mind (as extrapolated from my study of US history, US government, actual readings of the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, and conversations with many people of a great many political and socio-economic points of view; with a healthy dose of philosophy and theological perspective thrown in). I was estimating. As I said, "give or take".

 

edit: PS, I am not in favor of any party. I am completely in favor of following the Constitution in the context of the Declaration of Independence, and Revolutionary War.


Edited by frost73ite, 01 May 2016 - 02:24 AM.


#97 Trotsky

Trotsky

    The last Brohoof admin

  • Banned
  • 512 posts
  • minecraft:
    HellSteedTrotsky

Posted 01 May 2016 - 03:06 AM

ahh the glory days of Russia, right after the revolution was one of the most free countries in the world, after the Tsar but before the Soviet Union was a small span of a few years where it truly prospered. Ever overturning is the balance of power, one minute a new force wants to rise to power claiming the good of the people, the next it's the tyranny being overthrown. Ever noticed in the history of the world no republic has ever endured more than about 200 years? The US has reached that point and a little past. If you look back deep into the constitution you will find the works of Montesquieu behind it, and he describes in detail past governments through the ages, and how they have run their course, as well as advice for each. The system the founders employed was a truly great one, but their time is over and their great art decays. The cause? It can only be placed on the shoulders of the people for seeing it fail, for if anything, the founders placed to much faith in the people whom they wished to develop a government for, at the time of the founding it was high enlightenment, and learning and political science were common subjects. As the American education system has fallen into decay, so the minds of the people dull, and they stop steering their government. even in major year elections, voter turnout is at what 30%? Though this may not be an indication of the relevant thought behind those who do vote (the ideal being only those with sufficient political background to make informed decisions voting) It seems nevertheless apparent that the general interest of the American people on controlling and regulating the actions of their government is not sufficient to keep it within the boundaries of benefiting the people, and the government has become so centralized it is now beyond the people's ability to control by force. The military advancements of the past century have reduced the combat effectiveness of the American armed populace to negligible compared to what is at the disposal of the United States Government. A revolutionary war would be a catastrophic waste of life and material. The only thing that could put us back on track towards a government by the people, for the people, would be a sudden interest in the populace to take up the study of the system and to apply the pressures and checks to their government that it requires. Currently however, the only appearance with general trends is to grant more power to the Presidency (Executive branch) to push on Congress (Legislative branch) to get things done, thereby moving towards basically a monarchical control by the President. Yet this push is causing both branches to fail their duties. As Congress does little to nothing, while the Presidency focuses on legislation getting passed instead of the proper implementation of the mandates of Congress. Laws are very selectively enforced to the point of most being worthless as the paper they're written on and grant broad reaching powers that they often grant ridiculous powers that were never intended to actually be enforced, other than in the odd circumstance when someone so choose to do so. So ultimately unless we as a people wish to reading the laws and phoning our representatives with various requests and proposals concerning the laws, it is highly unlikely we will ever become the nation we have the right to be. I've heard and seen lone people get laws changed to grant freedoms to the people. I'm working on one right now in my home state that should appear before the next congress as a bill to add an exception to a far over reaching legal code which was composed without forethought to certain cases. If you actually look at state legal codes and federal codes, though, you may find them to be rather a mess from the view of the common person, and occasionally quite logical and correct, but without the views of the common people to make that happen. We are a loose train to which all that can be done is to sit back with a marshmallow on a stick and watch the flames of it's impending self destruction rage.



#98 Squint

Squint

    Zzz

  • Builder
  • 4956 posts
  • minecraft:
    Squu

Posted 01 May 2016 - 10:56 AM

yes, following rules made by old white guys in the 1700s is a really good plan.



#99 frost73ite

frost73ite

    Background Pony

  • Pony
  • 27 posts
  • minecraft:
    Frost73ite

Posted 01 May 2016 - 12:15 PM

Squint, The color of the Founding Fathers skin has nothing to do with it. As for them being "old", the oldest among them (Benjamin Franklin) was in his mid forties. They were all between 30 and 45(+/-). They were also very enlightened. Read their writings, and you will see just exactly how much they knew and understood. I get that you disagree with my view points, though I have no idea why. All I see is that you are angry that I'm saying anything that contradicts your feelings. Express your point of view, and give your reasons, or just leave the discussion.

 

Trotsky, I completely agree with you (on most points)! That is why I take every opportunity (here and elsewhere), to advocate that people look at what is happening, and educate themselves on the history of the country, and become involved by voting in favor of the Constitution.

On education, the system didn't actually fall into decay. It was designed to decay by the early "progressives" in the country during the height of the anti-communist fever here. Until education was federally mandated, teachers taught all their students according to their individual needs, and the general public was very well educated indeed. There were indeed those who were illiterate, and uneducated, because they chose to abandon studies to find work, either because they couldn't afford or lacked the interest in furthering their education. The moment the government put their noses into the education of our youth, the education system began to break down, to the point where across the board, publicly educated high school graduates today understand less of what they are "taught" in school then those with what would now be considered a third or fourth grade education at the time of our nation's birth. Many of the men who founded this country learned by private individual study after the end of their third to fifth year of formal education. The system of education needs to be redesigned to the needs of the students, rather than fitting everyone based almost entirely by the year they were born. Some learn slower, some learn faster, and all have different approaches to learning from everyone else.

 

One of the great principles included in the Constitution was the ability of the voting public to have a completely non-violent political revolution every number of years. If we don't like the decay of this nation, we need to have another revolution, by voting out the politicians on both sides of the aisle, and place in their stead those who will bring the freedoms and progress of this country back into high gear. We The People founded this country. We The People made it great, and We The People can reform it, taking it back to its Constitutional roots, and make it great again.


Edited by frost73ite, 01 May 2016 - 12:16 PM.


#100 Trotsky

Trotsky

    The last Brohoof admin

  • Banned
  • 512 posts
  • minecraft:
    HellSteedTrotsky

Posted 01 May 2016 - 07:53 PM

Any great ideas on how to make that happen? because I sure can't think of any. The trouble is it's a repeating cycle, bad education leads to lack of ability, only ability can fix bad education.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users