You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 10:11:33 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!]  (Read 40526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BlytheTopic starter

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #175 on: September 27, 2015, 11:08:58 PM »
Let's stop making strong personal assumptions about others and focus on candidate views, who you support, and why, please.

I'd rather keep this thread a friendly open place to discuss candidates.

Offline Ebb

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #176 on: September 27, 2015, 11:26:15 PM »
It's kinda hard to lay out your platform, when you have only so little time during the debates of ten people. As the pool gets smaller he'll have more time to outline his beliefs. Seeing how we as a nation voted for Bush and Obama twice, stranger things can happen.

Actually, the debates are not the place to roll out new policy or to introduce a platform. They're the place where in an ideal world you help to articulate your positions by responding to questions probing the weak points of your stated policies, while comparing and contrasting your own positions with those of your opponents in a favorable way.

The particular issue with Trump is that he's not really following the playbook in terms of putting forward well-thought out policy proposals. In short, he either hasn't done his homework or he's unwilling to show it to the rest of his class. Compare the campaign websites of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. I'm choosing Republicans here so as to remain, as much as possible, non-partisan in the comparison.

Rubio and Bush have stated positions and policies on a dozen issues each. They have detailed proposals for how they intend to alter the tax code, deal with national defense, handle entitlement spending, and other top issues. Trump has positions on exactly two issues: immigration and second amendment rights. The former has become his signature issue; the latter is simply pandering.

Now one might argue that Trump represents a new way of "doing politics", where the personal qualities of the candidate and other factors outweigh (almost said "trump" there) the more wonky side of things, where you have to come into the game with proof that you have thought about the major issues seriously and have a proposal for change that at least seems workable on the surface. Then you can debate the wisdom of these positions, argue over which ones would be good or bad for the country, and so on. Trump sidesteps this almost entirely, freely admitting that there are critical areas that he just hasn't gotten around to figuring out yet. This was very evident in the last debate, where he was hard-pressed to put together a cogent response on any issues of national security, the intended focus of the debate.

I think it's fair to say that any candidate for the highest office in the land ought to enter the race having expended serious thought, and of course consulting other advisors, on the top issues of the day. They ought to have a plan for how they would steer the ship, and that plan ought to be more sophisticated than just an automatic gainsaying of the incumbent's policies. I happen to think that Bush and Rubio's plans are fatally flawed, but at least they're out there. It seems pretty clear to me that Trump just isn't taking this seriously enough to be considered a strong candidate, no matter what the early polling numbers say.


Offline Merah

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #177 on: September 27, 2015, 11:28:49 PM »
>Implying I support trickle down economics.

>Implying I'm a Republican.

You've already done both of those. But yes, if all you do is spout rhetoric, deride others, and refuse to be nailed down on any solid position (holy crap that sounds familiar, now what candidate have I seen who acts like that?) then we can't engage in any meaningful debate with you. So thanks but no thanks, I'm done.

Offline Euron Greyjoy

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #178 on: September 27, 2015, 11:42:18 PM »
Actually, the debates are not the place to roll out new policy or to introduce a platform. They're the place where in an ideal world you help to articulate your positions by responding to questions probing the weak points of your stated policies, while comparing and contrasting your own positions with those of your opponents in a favorable way.

The particular issue with Trump is that he's not really following the playbook in terms of putting forward well-thought out policy proposals. In short, he either hasn't done his homework or he's unwilling to show it to the rest of his class. Compare the campaign websites of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. I'm choosing Republicans here so as to remain, as much as possible, non-partisan in the comparison.

Rubio and Bush have stated positions and policies on a dozen issues each. They have detailed proposals for how they intend to alter the tax code, deal with national defense, handle entitlement spending, and other top issues. Trump has positions on exactly two issues: immigration and second amendment rights. The former has become his signature issue; the latter is simply pandering.

Now one might argue that Trump represents a new way of "doing politics", where the personal qualities of the candidate and other factors outweigh (almost said "trump" there) the more wonky side of things, where you have to come into the game with proof that you have thought about the major issues seriously and have a proposal for change that at least seems workable on the surface. Then you can debate the wisdom of these positions, argue over which ones would be good or bad for the country, and so on. Trump sidesteps this almost entirely, freely admitting that there are critical areas that he just hasn't gotten around to figuring out yet. This was very evident in the last debate, where he was hard-pressed to put together a cogent response on any issues of national security, the intended focus of the debate.

I think it's fair to say that any candidate for the highest office in the land ought to enter the race having expended serious thought, and of course consulting other advisors, on the top issues of the day. They ought to have a plan for how they would steer the ship, and that plan ought to be more sophisticated than just an automatic gainsaying of the incumbent's policies. I happen to think that Bush and Rubio's plans are fatally flawed, but at least they're out there. It seems pretty clear to me that Trump just isn't taking this seriously enough to be considered a strong candidate, no matter what the early polling numbers say.
You're right on the money on that. I was about to correct myself only to see it was too late.

I'll give you that as well.

You can also say that about the other outsiders, Carson and Fiorina, but it's true the Donald is lacking in the position department. My hope is that as we get closer to the nominee he'll add to his positions. I like Trump simply because he's not a cuckservative who thinks mass immigration is a swell idea and we have to protect Israel at all costs. It also helps he's not and paid for by either corporations or unions.

You've already done both of those. But yes, if all you do is spout rhetoric, deride others, and refuse to be nailed down on any solid position (holy crap that sounds familiar, now what candidate have I seen who acts like that?) then we can't engage in any meaningful debate with you. So thanks but no thanks, I'm done.
If you must know I'm a reactionary and I'm in favor of a flat tax.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 11:43:28 PM by Euron Greyjoy »

Offline Merah

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #179 on: September 28, 2015, 12:32:43 AM »
If you must know I'm a reactionary and I'm in favor of a flat tax.

In that case, I respectfully disagree with you.

It appears that most of us dislike most of the candidates, for most of the same reasons. But as to the ones we do like... I guess I'm more open to socialized education and healthcare than you are. I would caution against choosing Trump simply because he's an outsider and not afraid to 'say it like it is'. I don't believe he's taking this election seriously and running a country is not the same as running a business. Not to mention I fear for what his confrontational style would spell for our international relations.

Offline Merah

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #180 on: September 28, 2015, 12:44:51 AM »
Let's stop making strong personal assumptions about others and focus on candidate views, who you support, and why, please.

I'd rather keep this thread a friendly open place to discuss candidates.

Sorry, Sherlock. ;) I'll try to stay more civil!

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #181 on: September 28, 2015, 02:07:39 AM »
I'm not sure it can be said that Trump is not paid for by a corporation...he IS a corporation. The Trump Organization has a net worth of 4 billion dollars - its value and Trump's value are pretty much one and the same, and he is funding his campaign out of personal wealth.

Offline BlytheTopic starter

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #182 on: September 28, 2015, 12:21:14 PM »
Trump has sort of started talking about tax reform.

Need to read whatever plan he's putting out, but "no taxes for people under $25,000 or married people under $50,000 in income" made me go 'whoa.' Mostly in a "he doesn't go small with anything" sort of way.

Wanting to see him elaborate more on major issues still, though.

Edit: Looks like the tax thing is on his site now.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 12:24:13 PM by Sherlock »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #183 on: September 28, 2015, 12:51:16 PM »
It's a good piece of marketing.  No taxes for the people struggling to get by.  No marriage penalty.  Say you're going to stick it to the "hedgefund guys" whom everyone hates.  Trump's no idiot.

And it sure beats 3.0's "black people only like Democrats because they give em' free stuff" babble.


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #184 on: September 28, 2015, 01:24:30 PM »
Regardless, considering Trump's typical reaction to anyone disagreeing with him, I can't see much encouraging with his entering the sphere of foreign relations.  In fact, the idea of him having the US arsenal at his disposal scares the crap out of me.

Too many candidates are forgetting that we are supposed have a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'.  The only 'people' that they pay any attention to are the ones formed by Citizens United.

Offline Euron Greyjoy

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #185 on: September 28, 2015, 01:25:48 PM »
In that case, I respectfully disagree with you.

It appears that most of us dislike most of the candidates, for most of the same reasons. But as to the ones we do like... I guess I'm more open to socialized education and healthcare than you are. I would caution against choosing Trump simply because he's an outsider and not afraid to 'say it like it is'. I don't believe he's taking this election seriously and running a country is not the same as running a business. Not to mention I fear for what his confrontational style would spell for our international relations.
It's okay as we all can't be right.  ;)

The reason education is so expensive is because the federal government guarantees loans, so colleges can jack up the price knowing the students are taking loans. You're joking right? Trump is a successful businessman. Meaning he had to get along with people to seal the deal. 

I'm not sure it can be said that Trump is not paid for by a corporation...he IS a corporation. The Trump Organization has a net worth of 4 billion dollars - its value and Trump's value are pretty much one and the same, and he is funding his campaign out of personal wealth.
It's better than the Koch brothers, Soros, Bloomberg, or union backed politicians.

It's a good piece of marketing.  No taxes for the people struggling to get by.  No marriage penalty.  Say you're going to stick it to the "hedgefund guys" whom everyone hates.  Trump's no idiot.

And it sure beats 3.0's "black people only like Democrats because they give em' free stuff" babble.
Well they are 13% of the population, but make up 32% of welfare recipients...It also helps the Democrats pander them with identity politics.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #186 on: September 28, 2015, 01:39:20 PM »
It's better than the Koch brothers, Soros, Bloomberg, or union backed politicians.

I'm not sure why, though, can you elaborate? It's not like he significantly different in terms of ideology than, say, the Koch brothers, who are similarly strong right-wing conservative. The only substantive difference here is that the middleman has been removed; the conservative CEO would theoretically be directly in the driver's seat, as opposed to being a politician fronted at one remove from the conservative CEO(s). At best, it's one greater degree of honesty, but the actual outcome doesn't change - a CEO/corporate interest is still in control of the Oval Office.

As for making deals...the only thing I personally knew about Trump before he became a candidate was his reality show and a reputation for properties with his name on them declaring bankruptcy. The former makes me suspicious of his motives - even if he doesn't win, this whole circus can be leveraged for massive brand recognition - and the latter makes me deeply concerned for his ability. The tax plan he's announced sounds great...but if there are no taxes on the low-income (which sounds more like a Democratic line-item to me), where is the money going to come from? Taxing the upper-income brackets and the corporations...like, say, the Trump Organization...is pretty much anathema to the GOP core voting base.

Offline Euron Greyjoy

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #187 on: September 28, 2015, 01:49:42 PM »
I'm not sure why, though, can you elaborate? It's not like he significantly different in terms of ideology than, say, the Koch brothers, who are similarly strong right-wing conservative. The only substantive difference here is that the middleman has been removed; the conservative CEO would theoretically be directly in the driver's seat, as opposed to being a politician fronted at one remove from the conservative CEO(s). At best, it's one greater degree of honesty, but the actual outcome doesn't change - a CEO/corporate interest is still in control of the Oval Office.

As for making deals...the only thing I personally knew about Trump before he became a candidate was his reality show and a reputation for properties with his name on them declaring bankruptcy. The former makes me suspicious of his motives - even if he doesn't win, this whole circus can be leveraged for massive brand recognition - and the latter makes me deeply concerned for his ability. The tax plan he's announced sounds great...but if there are no taxes on the low-income (which sounds more like a Democratic line-item to me), where is the money going to come from? Taxing the upper-income brackets and the corporations...like, say, the Trump Organization...is pretty much anathema to the GOP core voting base.
It's because he actually has his on views, rather than parroting the views on the donors. Unlike the Koch brothers, Trump supports universal healthcare and is strong on immigration.   You say bankruptcy he says he took advantage of the system, using businesses practices by others as well. Seeing how he's leading the polls and got a huge positive response after showing his tax plan, he'll be fine. For the first time the people with have an actual conservative candidate, instead of an establishment candidate.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 02:11:14 PM by Euron Greyjoy »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #188 on: September 28, 2015, 02:01:02 PM »
I looked at his tax plan, and I would repeat Glyph's question:  Where is the money coming from?  He's not only eliminating taxes on the lower brackets, he's lowering them on the upper brackets as well.  Unless he's got a plan to close the loopholes that allow Walmart to report $1.3 billion dollars in profits in Luxembourg (where the tax rate is <1%) when they have no stores there, I don't see this as a feasible plan.

Offline Euron Greyjoy

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #189 on: September 28, 2015, 02:05:37 PM »
Quote
The Trump Tax Plan Is Fiscally Responsible

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

1.Reducing or eliminating deductions and loopholes available to the very rich, starting by steepening the curve of the Personal Exemption Phaseout and the Pease Limitation on itemized deductions. The Trump plan also phases out the tax exemption on life insurance interest for high-income earners, ends the current tax treatment of carried interest for speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital, and reduces or eliminates other loopholes for the very rich and special interests. These reductions and eliminations will not harm the economy or hurt the middle class. Because the Trump plan introduces a new business income rate within the personal income tax code, they will not harm small businesses either.

2. A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a tax maneuver. Under this plan, they can bring their cash home and put it to work in America while benefitting from the newly-lowered corporate tax rate that is globally competitive and no longer requires parking cash overseas. Other companies have cash overseas for specific business units or activities. They can leave that cash overseas, but they will still have to pay the one-time repatriation fee.

3.An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place because no company should face double taxation.

4.Reducing or eliminating some corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

My hope is that he also means test welfare, gets rid of Medicare/aid, and either privatize social security or get rid of it. The problem with our current system is plenty of people on welfare can work, but choose to be on the government dole.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #190 on: September 28, 2015, 02:10:14 PM »
Quote
  You say bankruptcy is says he took advantage of the system,

That is exactly what I am also concerned about. Manipulating bankruptcy laws for personal advantage is a fault of said bankruptcy laws; it's worrisome that his businesses got to a point where he needed to declare bankruptcy on them in the first place, not that he did so once it was needed. But if you try to run a country - particularly one with as much influence, both soft power and hard power, as the U.S. - the way you would run a business, you'll cause a global meltdown. I have seen nothing so far that says Trump actually knows how to do so - run a country, not a corporation.

What you call strong on immigration, I see instead as massive xenophobia, and I fear this will greatly damage an already shaky US reputation in the foreign policy arena. When he's making business deals, it is with theoretical peers and financial counterparts, not as the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military and most significant financial market. That is a gigantic hammer to swing around in negotiations, and what I have observed of Trump's fundamental personality both before and after his candidacy makes it very unlikely he could resist swinging said hammer.

It's like watching a cartoon character run for president - every facet of his public persona seems massively exaggerated for exposure and ratings; and if they aren't, if he actually believes everything he is saying, it becomes terrifying instead of humorous.

My hope is that he also means test welfare, gets rid of Medicare/aid, and either privatize social security or get rid of it. The problem with our current system is plenty of people on welfare can work, but choose to be on the government dole.

Do you have a statistical backup for this? Since 1996, it's been a requirement to receive welfare that you must demonstrate active effort to find a job, or medical inability to hold one. The 'lazy welfare queen' stereotype is a long-standing Republican dogma item, but I've never seen a solid basing on fact and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #191 on: September 28, 2015, 02:12:26 PM »
It also helps the Democrats pander them with identity politics.

Huh?  So, 3.0 is on the Democrats' side?


Offline Euron Greyjoy

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #192 on: September 28, 2015, 02:20:28 PM »
That is exactly what I am also concerned about. Manipulating bankruptcy laws for personal advantage is a fault of said bankruptcy laws; it's worrisome that his businesses got to a point where he needed to declare bankruptcy on them in the first place, not that he did so once it was needed. But if you try to run a country - particularly one with as much influence, both soft power and hard power, as the U.S. - the way you would run a business, you'll cause a global meltdown. I have seen nothing so far that says Trump actually knows how to do so - run a country, not a corporation.

What you call strong on immigration, I see instead as massive xenophobia, and I fear this will greatly damage an already shaky US reputation in the foreign policy arena. When he's making business deals, it is with theoretical peers and financial counterparts, not as the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military and most significant financial market. That is a gigantic hammer to swing around in negotiations, and what I have observed of Trump's fundamental personality both before and after his candidacy makes it very unlikely he could resist swinging said hammer.

It's like watching a cartoon character run for president - every facet of his public persona seems massively exaggerated for exposure and ratings; and if they aren't, if he actually believes everything he is saying, it becomes terrifying instead of humorous.

Obama had little to no experience and he became president, running this country (into the ground in my view). The idea he wants to bankrupt country and use some loophole is ludicrous, as he wants to cut spending and taxes for the middle class.

And that's bad how? America is a country of immigrants, European immigrants who actually came here legally. It's better than Obama's lead from behind plan, allowing the Middle East to become a shit storm when he took out Gaddafi and lead to the rise of ISIS to fight against the only secular leader in the region Assad.

I could say we have a contus instead of a pontus, but that's just my opinion.

Quote
Do you have a statistical backup for this? Since 1996, it's been a requirement to receive welfare that you must demonstrate active effort to find a job, or medical inability to hold one. The 'lazy welfare queen' stereotype is a long-standing Republican dogma item, but I've never seen a solid basing on fact and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
The government doesn't keep track of leeches, something they should rectify. I have seen the opposite.

Huh?  So, 3.0 is on the Democrats' side?
No I'm saying the Democrats pander to minority groups. Like how Sanders and Clinton hired black people for their campaigns and talked about racial "justice" after Sanders got cucked.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #193 on: September 28, 2015, 02:24:27 PM »

The government doesn't keep track of leeches, something they should rectify. I have seen the opposite.


Unless you can provide actual hard numbers rather than vague assertions of lazy 'leeches', massive welfare fraud (since said leeches must be lying to do so) and equally massive government incompetence (since they are unable to detect or catch said fraudsters), I'm going to have to call BS on your assertions here. It's a stereotype the Right loves to use, and is heavily grounded in racism and sexism rather than reality ever since PROWA passed (under Clinton, incidentally).
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 02:26:37 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #194 on: September 28, 2015, 02:26:45 PM »
Do you have a statistical backup for this? Since 1996, it's been a requirement to receive welfare that you must demonstrate active effort to find a job, or medical inability to hold one. The 'lazy welfare queen' stereotype is a long-standing Republican dogma item, but I've never seen a solid basing on fact and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

I have an article against it...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/this-chart-blows-up-the-myth-of-the-welfare-queen/282452/

Also, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Zucchino of the LA Times wrote a series of articles debunking the myth, later compiled into a book released in 1997.   A review of his book (with excerpts) can be found here.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #195 on: September 28, 2015, 02:31:08 PM »
No I'm saying the Democrats pander to minority groups. Like how Sanders and Clinton hired black people for their campaigns and talked about racial "justice" after Sanders got cucked.

Ah.  So that was just a random jab at the Democrats that had nothing to do with 3.0.  Check.


Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #196 on: September 28, 2015, 02:31:40 PM »
Or here is data direct from the horse's mouth, charts via the Department of Labor of how much of each state's welfare payments were 'Improperly disbursed'. The Fraud ratio is generally under 3%, a far cry away from 'most welfare recipients'.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/Data.htm
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 02:33:07 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Euron Greyjoy

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #197 on: September 28, 2015, 02:33:41 PM »
Unless you can provide actual hard numbers rather than vague assertions of lazy 'leeches', massive welfare fraud (since said leeches must be lying to do so) and equally massive government incompetence (since they are unable to detect or catch said fraudsters), I'm going to have to call BS on your assertions here. It's a stereotype the Right loves to use, and is heavily grounded in racism and sexism rather than reality ever since PROWA passed (under Clinton, incidentally).
So are you saying that there aren't people who abuse the system then?

Muh sexism. Muh racism. Do you ever wonder why there's so many single mothers on welfare? It's because the state pays for it. Between alimony, child support, and welfare it's certainly not a hard knock life. Even more so when they can paid more for each spawn they breed into existence.

Ah.  So that was just a random jab at the Democrats that had nothing to do with 3.0.  Check.
Correct. If I had to support another Republican other than Trump, it would certainly not be Bush. The guy has no spine when it comes to immigration and would make a better president of Mexico than America.

Edit - I'm now forced to bow out. If you want to continue this PM me.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 02:36:06 PM by Euron Greyjoy »

Offline BlytheTopic starter

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #198 on: September 28, 2015, 02:37:37 PM »
So are you saying that there aren't people who abuse the system then?

Muh sexism. Muh racism. Do you ever wonder why there's so many single mothers on welfare? It's because the state pays for it. Between alimony, child support, and welfare it's certainly not a hard knock life. Even more so when they can paid more for each spawn they breed into existence.

No, Glyphstone stated that the figure for fraud in this case is more realistically under 3% and cited his source for it.

Edit: Did not see edit before posting. Guh.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 02:38:38 PM by Sherlock »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #199 on: September 28, 2015, 02:38:57 PM »
Quote
So are you saying that there aren't people who abuse the system then?
No, I'm saying that 3% of welfare payouts being fraudulent (which includes other cases of fraud beyond 'could work but won't' is hardly the epidemic of laziness you believe in

You're just parroting GOP propaganda at this point, despite the hard evidence we are showing you against it. If you are that adamant to ignore actual facts, including ones directly published by the government itself, there is no point in further discussing it. So bowing out is probably the best option.