Rocky 21 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I don't care who runs for the Republicans, as long as they lose it's okay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,776 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 As long as the Republicans lose, so there will be more peace in the world and less environmental problems affecting me and all beautiful animals Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,776 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The majority of the people abuse the system though. I dislike welfare, to many people are on it for the wrong reasons. I understand the people who have college degrees and can't get work, the people who get laid off, or are disabled and can't work, but there is so much lazy trash in this country that rather sit on their ass and get government checks paid by the hard workers than get a job. The amount of money given out in food stamps yearly is absurd and the amount of money in welfare. Obama's phone program cost the government over 2 BILLION DOLLARS. That's two billion dollars to give poor people cell phones, since when were cell phones a necessity? It's pathetic. The statistics speak for themselves http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ and the fact that welfare has drastically increased with Obamas presidency proves that it's because Obama care allows people to abuse the system Exactly. The choosing of a president shouldn't be solely based off if he supports LGBT or not, it should be based off who's going to run our country in a better more productive manor. There are worse problems in the US spenditure, over 0.6 trillion USD is spent on military a year, more than the Top 10 combined. That's 4.4% of the GDP, and it could be spent on more job growth, better healthcare, lower taxes, better infrastructure, facing environmental problems, etc. The military spending isn't that high because of the democrats, it's thanks to the republicans. And if it was up to the republicans, the US would be in war with all of the Middle East besides Israel, half of Africa and all communist nations, rather than seeking help for the poorest in the world, or hell the poorest in their own country. The minimum wage in the US is too low, businesses have too much power, there's too much ignorance (greenhouse effect isn't real!!!11), the health in the US isn't good at all (look at the percentage of obese in the US), there's too many illegals, etc. The US could have even better economic growth if they chose to spend only 2.5% or 2% of their GDP on military, and spend it on improving infrastructure and education instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 But apart from the symbolism, what about all the economic benefits afforded to man-woman unions that are not completely afforded to same-s-x unions? As in marriage, not civil unions? While being a symbolic victory in and of itself, there's economic factors to consider, are they not? Considering you appreciate that field, I ask that. thats a good point actually in which i dont really have an answer See in Canada weve had a conservatie party for almost a decade and they have been cutting taxes and spending ever since. Our businesses are no longer soffucated with taxes and were more competitive But our conservatives are rightwinged more on economic issues. They never really had an issue with the LGBT or other social problems I actually dont know any party here thats conservative in social issues so... As far as im concerned all that matters is their economic policies so... I guess its hard for me to relate to the US in that sense :MANiCURE: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 There are worse problems in the US spenditure, over 0.6 trillion USD is spent on military a year, more than the Top 10 combined. That's 4.4% of the GDP, and it could be spent on more job growth, better healthcare, lower taxes, better infrastructure, facing environmental problems, etc. The military spending isn't that high because of the democrats, it's thanks to the republicans. And if it was up to the republicans, the US would be in war with all of the Middle East besides Israel, half of Africa and all communist nations, rather than seeking help for the poorest in the world, or hell the poorest in their own country. The minimum wage in the US is too low, businesses have too much power, there's too much ignorance (greenhouse effect isn't real!!!11), the health in the US isn't good at all (look at the percentage of obese in the US), there's too many illegals, etc. The US could have even better economic growth if they chose to spend only 2.5% or 2% of their GDP on military, and spend it on improving infrastructure and education instead. omg thankyou Military is the biggest financial drain EVER! And it takes away labor that could be used for the economy to be productive in the private sector If that money was used in infrastructure or edication or healthcare... Heck, even welfare and food stamps are preferable to military. Im not a fan of spending too much on that but frig, if i have to choose between that and military, at least it does something good for someone Like $600 billion annually? 6 times more than the 2nd biggest spender (China)? More than the rest of the top 10 combined? HOW ON EARTH DO U JUSTIFY THAT????? I also agree minimum wage is too low. A higher minimum wage like $9/h wouldnt kill hiring and would help offset some welfare handouts and help close income gap a little As for obesity... Thats more personal habita than healthcare. Good healthcare isnt whats gonna make you skinny :emma: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I don't think that LGBT people are that shallow and uninformed as that... Its a matter of priorities and self-interest, not that all we care about is same-s-x marriage. Some people REALLY value the right to marriage, and see it as a battle of "what should come first? Basic rights or ___"? which imo has just a little merit in its roots (though to most intelligent people, obv. things like the economy and what not are just more objectively important.. especially if they are bad or deteriorating... but everyone has the right to vote and that is that, lol) I would argue that not liking or voting for a candidate because of their stance on the subject is valid and acceptable. A candidate who is against rights for certain people and doesnt believe on the emotional, albeit sometimes romanticized concepts of "America" hardly deserves to be president to most people. Yes, you can be entirely factual, and the economy might be more immediately important, but if he doesnt uphold standards, he may or may not have support and might be more likely to end up an inefficient president.. For example,media is huge in painting a candidate -- it can dictate how a president or candidate will be seen by the general public for the entirety of their presidential career --- or attempt at one. Like with Obama, lol. For real, media has managed to spin things that are semi or pseudo-conservative concepts proposed by Obama into negative ones, simply because he was associated with him. It got so bad that even Democrats didn't want to be associated with his name because there is such biased vitriol for him and anything he supports... SIMPLY because he is who he is. He could have been the best president ever behind the scenes and people would STILL hate him. His achievements aside, he did have the country stacked against him at the end of the day, and a vast majority of people don't even know why they hate him so much... its become popular to do so, without researching the impact or reality of his contributions to the country. (Personally, I think hes meh ) You also forget to include the fact that modern social conservatism or belief in traditional values IS sometimes heavily problematic or adversely religious motivated... Its not that Republicans (generally) don't believe in or want Same-Sex Marriage alone, but they are sometimes practical to a fault --- not because they arent intelligent about the economy and what not, but because their intelligence is often clouded by hypocritical, backwards concepts. If we could find people with a good mixture of social liberalism and economic/governmental conservatism, we'd be set in theory... This is why the Republican party is experiencing a "bit" of a crisis at the moment. Tbh, Obama's negative press has won them soo many points, but it capitalizes on such a basic, flawed human notion. "The Democrats are doing bad, therefore ANY popular republican will do bad, sans all of their flaws". It's flawed because its presumptuous. So my point is that many people, not just LGBT people and minorities, are against Republicans because not all of them believe in equal rights for everyone, or some are incredibly s-xist and uneducated/misinformed when it comes to social issues IN GENERAL. Some people might be as basic (no shade intended ) as to only care about Same-Sex Marriage, or gay rights because they are self-absorbed, or its the only topic they know about, etc etc. But again, its up to your own priorities. I just think more people don't like the party and its candidates for a combination of similarly related reasons. As for me, I personally identify as conservative leaning economically, but almost entirely liberal socially, and I feel like my vote will depend on what I feel is more important for me and the country in the moment-- as well as who I honestly think will simply do a better job. So its entirely possible I will vote for Republican one, Democrat another. Tbh, If I was 18 in 2008, I would have voted for Hilary personally. Romney seemed weak and malleable to me. More in it for the prestige and an ego trip than to actively want to improve the country -- or improve it based on a confused vision of what it actually needs help in (other than the economy). He seems like the kind of president who would let his advisers and the GP basically run the presidency for him. That's the sense I get from him. I didnt just rely on biased media sources to come to that conclusion, but it was my perception regardless, lol. Finally just for fun, any educated tumblr user can send you a myriad of links on what Obama has done "good" for the country. Its all guessing ofc, but I still think Romney would have been worse as a president than Obama you make many valid points. For me personaly i would value prosperity Nationwide over a few details... But thats just me. Gays are not legally oppressed like in the past or in other Countries. They just dont have certain right in SOME States I know in my Province same-s-x marriage was legalized in 2003... Nationwide in 2005. Some parts of Canada didnt fully support it, but the Federal Government forced it and Provincial Governments that still didnt allow it had to abide Now i dunno if that was a goood idea or not... Canadian Provinces like US States have a lot if power in many things and when the Federal Government forces too many issues, they dont like it because they feel their autonomy isnt respected and our Provincial Premiers (our version if Governors) butt heads with the Canadian Prime Minister all the time Perhaps letting States decide on their own for now might be best... But thats just a suggestion. Its not just the Governments, u have to remember different parts of a Country especially when large have different values, and trying to force everything at the same time Nation-Wide isnt always the best I used to criticise how much taxes and spending dropped atthe Federal Level and how much in increased at the Provincial Level. Here in Canada in the last 15 years theyve taken over a lot... In fact as a % of taxes and spending our Provinces make up a much bigger portion than that of US States! But different parts of Canada have different ideals and giving them more autonomy ive come to realise actually makes the Country more effective because with different ideals, if one Province doesnt support something, to a degree they sont have to do it (although LGBT and other rights dont apply cause it was rulled to be part of our charter of rights and freedoms so they cant backtrack) Perhaps its best if u try to give more power to the States. Especially on the economic part of it i notice US States dont make up a significant portion of over-all Government tax revenue and spending I dunno just a suggestion. :shrug: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,776 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 omg thankyou Military is the biggest financial drain EVER! And it takes away labor that could be used for the economy to be productive in the private sector If that money was used in infrastructure or edication or healthcare... Heck, even welfare and food stamps are preferable to military. Im not a fan of spending too much on that but frig, if i have to choose between that and military, at least it does something good for someone Like $600 billion annually? 6 times more than the 2nd biggest spender (China)? More than the rest of the top 10 combined? HOW ON EARTH DO U JUSTIFY THAT????? I also agree minimum wage is too low. A higher minimum wage like $9/h wouldnt kill hiring and would help offset some welfare handouts and help close income gap a little As for obesity... Thats more personal habita than healthcare. Good healthcare isnt whats gonna make you skinny I wasnt talkimg about good healthcare, more health programs to educate people about food. Also raising minimum wages would help poorer people eat less at Mc or BK because its so cheap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Prince 109,654 Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 There are worse problems in the US spenditure, over 0.6 trillion USD is spent on military a year, more than the Top 10 combined. That's 4.4% of the GDP, and it could be spent on more job growth, better healthcare, lower taxes, better infrastructure, facing environmental problems, etc. The military spending isn't that high because of the democrats, it's thanks to the republicans. And if it was up to the republicans, the US would be in war with all of the Middle East besides Israel, half of Africa and all communist nations, rather than seeking help for the poorest in the world, or hell the poorest in their own country. The minimum wage in the US is too low, businesses have too much power, there's too much ignorance (greenhouse effect isn't real!!!11), the health in the US isn't good at all (look at the percentage of obese in the US), there's too many illegals, etc. The US could have even better economic growth if they chose to spend only 2.5% or 2% of their GDP on military, and spend it on improving infrastructure and education instead. Slayed by your post. I wasnt talkimg about good healthcare, more health programs to educate people about food. Also raising minimum wages would help poorer people eat less at Mc or BK because its so cheap. Oh, but people do know what's good and bad. They just choose to eat crap. I have a friend who straight up told me "I don't care what is in all this fast food, I WILL eat it and no health expert is going to tell me not to" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I wasnt talkimg about good healthcare, more health programs to educate people about food. Also raising minimum wages would help poorer people eat less at Mc or BK because its so cheap. well ppl know fully well about the dangers of fast food and junk food. But ppl in North America culturally have gotten addicted to it Our media talks about it all the time and stuff the issue isnt knowledge I know how bad that stuff is for u but my friends go, i like it, and i end up eating junk food all the time I think eliminating poverty would only have a marginal effect on what they eat tbh In anycase i still support a modest minimum wage hike in the US. It is in fact too low Slayed by your post. Oh, but people do know what's good and bad. They just choose to eat crap. I have a friend who straight up told me "I don't care what is in all this fast food, I WILL eat it and no health expert is going to tell me not to" this tbh!!! Its talked about soooooo much even here in Canada yet ppl eat garbage all the time I dont think education is whats gonna help if ppl already know but make the choice anyway... Myself included :rip: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,776 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 well ppl know fully well about the dangers of fast food and junk food. But ppl in North America culturally have gotten addicted to it Our media talks about it all the time and stuff the issue isnt knowledge I know how bad that stuff is for u but my friends go, i like it, and i end up eating junk food all the time I think eliminating poverty would only have a marginal effect on what they eat tbh In anycase i still support a modest minimum wage hike in the US. It is in fact too low this tbh!!! Its talked about soooooo much even here in Canada yet ppl eat garbage all the time I dont think education is whats gonna help if ppl already know but make the choice anyway... Myself included I eat fast food about 2-3 times a year, but I have friends who eat fast food like 2-3 times a week it depends on the person tbh. But money also plays a big role, and of course education. I'd rather pay €12 for a good restaurant than €8 for a big mac menu. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MahoganySnitch 67 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 thats a good point actually in which i dont really have an answer See in Canada weve had a conservatie party for almost a decade and they have been cutting taxes and spending ever since. Our businesses are no longer soffucated with taxes and were more competitive But our conservatives are rightwinged more on economic issues. They never really had an issue with the LGBT or other social problems I actually dont know any party here thats conservative in social issues so... As far as im concerned all that matters is their economic policies so... I guess its hard for me to relate to the US in that sense Ah, I see. Here in the States, (As far as I'm aware), the right-wing platform includes anti-gay marriage positions. So it's not like they see it as a non-issue; it very much is, in the psyche of the right-wing and like-minded constituents. So much so that there's a constant desire to include a Constitutional Amendment banning same-s-x marriage nationwide. So when gays like myself look into the candidate's position, it's much more than an ideological battle; it does come down to money/actions. As in visitation rights, social security benefits for the partner, etc. So when people say they look at Romney's overall plan for the country....a certain segment of the population, if it were up to him, wouldn't enjoy all of its fruits. There are worse problems in the US spenditure, over 0.6 trillion USD is spent on military a year, more than the Top 10 combined. That's 4.4% of the GDP, and it could be spent on more job growth, better healthcare, lower taxes, better infrastructure, facing environmental problems, etc. The military spending isn't that high because of the democrats, it's thanks to the republicans. And if it was up to the republicans, the US would be in war with all of the Middle East besides Israel, half of Africa and all communist nations, rather than seeking help for the poorest in the world, or hell the poorest in their own country. The minimum wage in the US is too low, businesses have too much power, there's too much ignorance (greenhouse effect isn't real!!!11), the health in the US isn't good at all (look at the percentage of obese in the US), there's too many illegals, etc. The US could have even better economic growth if they chose to spend only 2.5% or 2% of their GDP on military, and spend it on improving infrastructure and education instead. ALL OF THIS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Die 1,864 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Do you even know what you're talking about? That program originated from the George W. Bush era. Yas. Give that entitled know-it-all brat what-for. Nod if you wanna make love with the enemy. ❤ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.