[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 6979661 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null 2016 US Presidential Election Thread - Mafiascum.net
Post
Post #153 (isolation #0) » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:49 am
Postby Kublai Khan »
In post 150, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I'm sure this is true, but it's not evil corperations trying to save a buck by screwing women over.
Well, watch something like Mad Men. Look at the prototypical office which has male executives and female secretaries. Work out the average salaries.
A big problem is that culturally, girls aren't likely to embrace or be interested in STEM topics because they don't want to be socially ostracized by their peers. Or they buy into BS stereotypes like "girls aren't good at math" and don't even try.
Post
Post #341 (isolation #2) » Fri Aug 21, 2015 10:42 pm
Postby Kublai Khan »
In post 336, Brandi wrote:I dunno what my country is afraid of happening if we cut military spending~ Like would it make the news in other countries "US cuts military spending by 5%" and then every other country will be like "AHAHhwehehehhehehehHASHAHA now is our chance to finally KILL AMErICA"
A lot of military equipment, munition, vehicle, and other manufacturing plants are on us soil and provide us jobs. Plus all the private industries are contracted by the us military. So a cut in military spending is usually directly tied to people losing jobs in districts of entrenched party members.
It's out of control and nobody has a popular solution.
Post
Post #350 (isolation #4) » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:22 pm
Postby Kublai Khan »
In post 349, Brandi wrote:I think it would be really cool if instead of throwing out food at grocery stores and restaurants it could be regularly given away. Even at some places employee's aren't allowed to have them unless they pay for it. Wish I knew why it had to be that way.
Liability.
If someone gets sick from tainted food or if they had an allergy to some element of the food, then they have a viable lawsuit.
Post
Post #359 (isolation #6) » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:46 pm
Postby Kublai Khan »
Spoiler: nightmare fuel
Does the fact that Trump have a huge lead and is trusted to "fix" the economy mean that the rest of the GOP field is horrible or the GOP base are morons?
In post 548, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I wouldn't have a problem at 35% for the rich, but not 50%. People deserve to keep some of their income.
Are you in favor of rolling back the tax rate back to 1950 levels?
It would depend on what those are.
A little over 90%. It's important to understand that after a war (WWII), income tax on the rich watypically raised to high levels to pay off all debts incurred. The rate was dropped to about 70% during the early 60s when everything was pretty copacetic. When Reagan took office, he slashed it down to about 29% under the theory that the savings would be passed down to the poor (they weren't). They went back up to 40% under Clinton, then dropped to 35% under Walker Bush and raised back up to 40% under Obama. Statistically, the Obama tax increase was pretty insignificant.
Most of our debt is due to the 15 year (and ongoing) war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and on-going War on Terror). Raising the tax of the poor to the levels of the tax on the rich (the "flat tax") only results in the poor being fleeced and driven into further poverty.
Post
Post #566 (isolation #14) » Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:45 pm
Postby Kublai Khan »
In post 565, MonkeyMan576 wrote:It's based on faulty information anyway and both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are dead.
I didn't ask if you personally agreed with the war.
The war happened (and is still happening) regardless of your personal feelings. Money was borrowed to pay for that war.
The US can't just ignore the financial obligations because of buyer's remorse. You can't just propose a flat tax and force the poor to pay for that war.
Post
Post #578 (isolation #15) » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:59 pm
Postby Kublai Khan »
Why do you always equate taxing with punishment? Are you being punished by being protected by the best military force on the planet? Is your safe drinking water, clean air, and untainted foods some sort of curse that you suffer from? Is the idea that somewhere in your country children are getting a free education and not being crippled by polio giving you night terrors?
You get a lot back from your taxes. You've stated that you're not well-off. So you're actually telling us that you would prefer those more rich to pay less so that you could have less free public services. Or worse that the government becomes so broke that they have to privatize services. Meaning that you'd have to start paying for stuff you already get for free. Why?
The American rich got and stayed rich because this country gave them the freedom, the opportunity, and the safety to do so. It is their duty to pay back into the system so that others can also succeed and make the country greater as a whole.
Post
Post #603 (isolation #17) » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:57 am
Postby Kublai Khan »
In post 602, Untrod Tripod wrote:it's a pretty insidious (and racially charged) problem that people make the assertion that athletes coast on their physical gifts and don't put in the work to become great
Post
Post #635 (isolation #19) » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:00 am
Postby Kublai Khan »
In post 621, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I think the point is that it shouldn't be up to government to "even the playing field" for the rich and the poor. Having an unfairly high progressive tax is basically saying the rich shouldn't be rewarded for success. It's saying that there aren't a lot of rich people that are willingly generous with their money. This just isn't the case, in America you are rewarded for success, not punished. There is a balance that can be struck between taking care of the poor and allowing people to keep their hard earned money.
Can I ask you.. Why do your fervently fight for the interests of the rich and not for your own self-interest?
Post
Post #712 (isolation #21) » Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:49 am
Postby Kublai Khan »
Biden doesn't really excite me. He's of the same pro-corporate mold that Clinton is. Democrats don't really have a wide platform to choose from (or it's completely ignored because of the GOP circus).
In post 720, Untrod Tripod wrote:College sports are not an "extracurricular" for most actual students. they're just a thing you CAN spectate and are forced to spend hundreds of dollars on every semester.
they're an exclusive club for a very tiny group of students that does nothing to further the actual mission of a university
Again, there's a lot more to "college sports" than the big D1 programs.
D2 and D3 level sports are a lot more inclusive, and generally don't cost other students anything to spectate. Many of the students playing sports at these levels are also achieving academic honors. Lots of the bigger schools have student led club teams and compete against other schools' club teams.
The big D1 programs are also a draw for admissions, which I'm guessing isn't taken into account when deciding if a program is operating in the red. I'd bet that 30 full athletic scholarships to run a successful D1 program gets more students enrolled than giving the equivalent in academic scholarships. And if you hypothetically discontinue a big program like a D1 football program because its operating in the red, and you lose a ton of admissions because students no longer want to go there, that's even less money coming in to spend on the actual mission of a university. And considering a lot of these schools are state schools,
loosing
admissions likely means losing state money as well. And like, the ohio state marching band likely wouldn't exist in its current state if the ohio state football team didn't exist in its current state.
Your point is invalid, bruh.
Seriously though, do colleges make up those operating costs (and beyond) in alumni contributions? I always thought that keeping boosters and donors happy was the number one reason that athletic programs are given such prominence. More so than admissions.
Post
Post #829 (isolation #26) » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:26 am
Postby Kublai Khan »
In post 827, Telo wrote:If the candidates wives are a liability why is no one mentioning that Trump has had at least 3 of them and 2 weren't even American.
If I was Rebublican I'd vote for a dude with a Brown wife before I voted for one with 3 babymammas.
No, no. Republicans love heterosexual marriages. They really don't care how many someone has had.
Post
Post #837 (isolation #27) » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:05 am
Postby Kublai Khan »
I turned over to the GOP debates for a second after work. I heard Jeb deliver the line of "My brother kept us safe when he was in office" to thunderous applause and I just turned that right off.
Then Fox’s Brian Kilmeade asked if, like Obama, [Ben] Carson would would still travel to visit victims’ families despite some residents protests of grandstanding, to which Carson replied all too casually:
"Probably not. I mean, I would probably have so many things on my agenda that I would go to the next one."
