Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Sanders isn't a communist, he's a socialist. There's a world of difference between the two. A communist believes in collective ownership of everything, a socialist believes that a completely unregulated market is bad for the people. Which is factually correct. If you disagree, look up working conditions during the Industrial Revolution and the reasons for the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act.
I don't think Hillary will win after that Email scandal that happened.
Same here. A lot of people distrust her.
Socialism is predicated on the notion that government has the right to seize your assets at gun-point and redistribute them as they see fit. How does that not spit in the face of private ownership?
Nah, I disagree. I guess I can understand where you coming from. But it really all depends on what type of Socialism you looking at.
Apparently the act of disagreeing with something makes it invalid. OK, I disagree that the Earth is round--NOW THE EARTH IS FLAT.
How people describe themselves is irrelevant, we must assess their principles (or lack thereof). I consider all forms of government to be on the same spectrum of coercion. The methods used to appoint leaders, manage taxes and pass legislation have no bearing on moral legitimacy.
You forgot "fascist" and "muslim".
I'll spare you the full libertarian spiel if you spare me the statist rhetoric we all grew up with.
OF COURSE all governments are coercion, but that fact has no bearing on legitimacy.
No, by all means, lay it on me. My roommate in college was a member of the Libertarian Party. I'm neither immune to nor closed to the ideas of the Libertarian movement. I do however question the validity of Libertarians as political figures - it seems contradictory. As in, once you put on the suit and tie, and take up an office on Capital Hill, you pretty much have to burn your Party card cause you're one of "them" now, you're part of the system. A true lib wants NO system. (Unless I'm missing something in between the lines).
A thorough philosophical explanation of libertarianism is lengthier than you think and I really can't be bothered providing it here, no one who lacks curiosity to do the research themselves will be convinced.
Emphasis mine.
Hoo boy, my hatred for the Clintons is growing stronger and stronger each passing day.
She doesn't care. She's still going to vote for her solely because they are both liberal women.
Hehe, It can be very difficult to change someone's political views. Especially if you're their child, lol.
Bill Clinton is considered reputable because, among other things, the economy was in great shape while he was president. The fact that speaker of the house Newt Gingrich was having an affair at the same time that the lewinsky scandal happened also made it pretty easy to see it as "The now-republican-controlled house trying to wrestle control of the presidency via any means"
Clinton was riding the economic coattails of Reagan and Bush. The full impact of any new regulation or repeal is always delayed. Too bad most people do not understand this.
If you register to vote (since you can at age 18), you can have a say.I am in a funny situation, I turn 18 after the primaries but before november 2016, meaning I have no say in who I have to vote for, and is really why I am so opposed to the ridiculous two party system we have... Donald Trump to me is one of my least favorie canidates, next to Hillary Clinton. and in front of Bernie Sanders, Hillary is a liar so I would vote for trump or sanders before I would ever put clinton in office because at least trump and sanders are genuine. But my pick if I can have it, it would be either Ben Carson or even more Carly Fiorina
No Kidding, realistically I would be way more comfortable with Sanders in and his unrealistic goals, than Trump any day...
So you prefer abject insanity over an unappealing personality?
Not his personality as the problem, but trumps been supporting the left for a long time, I just don't trust him, I think he is being dishonest, I mean at least Sanders is honest about his socialist ideas and he is genuine, I wouldn't want Sanders but I don't trust trump
Buddy, if somebody is aiming to be a big-shot in the business world then they have to play politics from every angle. You'll find that most large companies split their donations between both major parties.
I know that, I just dont trust trump as musch as most people seem toI would much rather have Ben Carson or Carly fiorina be at the top and I dislike trumps plan for immigration as much as I dislike sanders' plan for taxesI would vote for neither if given the chance but I have just about no say in who I get to choose in the main election because I cannot vote in the primaries, honestly if the primaries go how they look they should, I will vote for who ever is running indiependant unless its hillary clinton. I would never in a million years vote for hillary. tbh she shouldnt be allowed to run, but whatever...
Right. Which is totally why Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway are all Marxist hellholes.
Question - does it matter? Like, at all? No law was broken, and no amount of investigation was able to actually stick anything to her, and at this point there's simply no reason at all to take any of the "scandals" put forward by the republican party seriously. Not after the lies they've been telling, or the blatantly political nature of this particular witch hunt that they basically just admitted.
Oh god, do we seriously have one of those "taxation = theft" people here?
Yeah! Because it turns out that cheating on your wife doesn't somehow outweigh 8 damn good years. Go figure. There's a certain irony in you bringing up the Lewinsky scandal in the same thread as others are crowing about the emails scandal - essentially every democratic presidency since Carter was plagued by trumped-up scandals put forward essentially for the sake of being ***** about it.
Yeah, not like that ever happens to democrats. Like Edwards. Or Wiener. Or Spitzer.
Lol, what? Communism and Socialism are two different things.
Vitriol is not an argument. There's nothing particularly compelling here.
Well... yeah. That's kind of the whole point of my post.
Explain to me -- without bringing up the crimes the person perpetrated -- how the death penalty is not murder. Doesn't work, does it? Again, in rejecting the social contract, you're essentially spitting on the concept of any government. In a representative democracy, by simply being a part of society, you have the ability to influence the social contract you are under. In almost every nation, you have the right to reject the social contract by leaving. That said, I agree - you'll find it hard to find a place without any sort of social contract in place, because, surprise surprise, it turns out that anarchy is inherently unstable and most people like some basic protections like legal systems.
Build an island in the pacific. I'm sure nobody will bother you out there. Or just convince your home country to give up their government. Given all the advantages libertarianism offers everyone involved, I'm sure they'll get on board. Or maybe not...
Now why do you reckon that is? Here, lemme paint you a picture:
Let's say we live in a hypothetical anarchist state. You own a really nice farm. I'd really like to have that farm, and I have money and resources to field a small army. What's going to stop me from just taking that really nice farm of yours? Can you field a larger army? Now what if I want to lock you up in my basement? Again, who's going to stop me? You? The unfortunate thing about an anarchist society is that it requires everyone involved to not be a ****. Even if you assume some basic legal system (how that's supposed to work without a government or taxation I have no idea), you still have to take care of edge cases like the tragedy of the commons or simple pollution. I'm reminded of the famous WKUK sketch:
Then why you quote Sucumbio? That's the part I don't get.
