-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
General Republican Party/Primary Discussion
- Thread starter danilo
- Start date
Stratos
Banned deucer.
okay, here's an effort at clarification:
it's a dangerous route to start saying that people deserve THINGS, because there is obviously a limited ability to provide things, but an unlimited ability to want them. Furthermore, when people get things simply because they are alive, then they are unincentivized from being a contributing member of society.
On the other hand, people to have a right to DO. These rights are easily protected, unlimited, and free of charge. For example, I do not have a right to food. If I run out of food, sucks.* However, I have an unalienable right to be able to get and keep food. Do you see the difference?
*I'm not a heartless asshole. I'm just saying it's not the government's job to make sure I don't run out of food.
it's a dangerous route to start saying that people deserve THINGS, because there is obviously a limited ability to provide things, but an unlimited ability to want them. Furthermore, when people get things simply because they are alive, then they are unincentivized from being a contributing member of society.
On the other hand, people to have a right to DO. These rights are easily protected, unlimited, and free of charge. For example, I do not have a right to food. If I run out of food, sucks.* However, I have an unalienable right to be able to get and keep food. Do you see the difference?
*I'm not a heartless asshole. I'm just saying it's not the government's job to make sure I don't run out of food.
Actually, I heard something interesting about this just recently. Here in America, we suffer from what some internet-savvy folks have dubbed "first world problems." Well, turns out problems in other parts of the world, there are real problems (things in the Middle East come to mind). The government's job is to provide us with safety, as I'm sure most of us can agree. The problem is, pretty much everyone is all but completely focused on fiscal policy for this election. Sure, there are some debates with abortion laws and other moral aspects, but candidates such as Mitt Romney are definitely on the fiscally conservative ticket more so than the morally conservative in how they act (couldn't care less what they say). America as a country is so involved with the rest of the world, that this frankly should not be this way. I feel like safety is a lower priority than our economy at this point, and it may take a crisis to wake us up from that.
this distinctly reminds me of all the "i'm not racist, but..." posts on facebook and other moron conglomerations
Why so mean-spirited, guys?
I can't tell if you're joking or if you honestly believe Pwnemon is an ogre. The distinction comes down to one's belief concerning the role of government. Like if an individual who claims to care about the poor is actually helping the poor, or if they're expecting the government to be compassionate on their behalf.
I realize that this is like conservative gospel but I'm here to challenge that because it makes no sense at all. How does everyone getting a minimal baseline turn them off from being contributing members of society?Pwnemon said:
For that matter, what does it even mean to be a contributing member of society?
Ice-eyes
Simper Fi
Fiscal / economic policy is way more important than either moral issues or 'safety' issues. What is the biggest external threat to the USA right now?
No I'm just pointing out the circular logic of his statement and the direct, i.e not slippery slope AT ALL, implications and ideals of his statement. If you consider his logic to be that of an 'ogre's', that is coming only from you and not all from any spin I put on his assertion. Perhaps you may consider why you find it so revolting.
I don't believe in 'helping the poor', I believe in actively eliminating poverty such as it is possible. There is a distinction.
Stratos
Banned deucer.
a person can stop being poor, can they not?
I believe strongly in helping poor people not be poor, but that doesn't mean government handouts off the taxpayer's back.
Your wording here is very poor. A person can attempt to escape poverty by working two jobs, getting a bit more education and skills to improve their careers but sometimes forces beyond their control such as the job market, unforeseen accidents or illness. Even if those were a non-factor they may not get anywhere because workers exist to be exploited, have their wages cut and cost of living rise.
So no they cannot just "stop being poor".
Now the line "helping poor people not be poor" is also questionable. A better word might be "raise their quality of living". While I love charities and organizations that feed the homeless and provide care, services such as reasonable public transit, a minimum wage that is also a living wage (in Ontario the living wage is estimated 16.00, while minimum wage is 10.25), and affordable health care are all thing we need the government to provide for us. They won't just magically get better, and a healthy lower class does benefit the rest of society if their situation is not dire enough to resort to crime if need be.
conservatives usually define a "contributing member of society" as someone who:
1) works
2) pays their taxes
3) votes (preferably Republican!)
Upward mobility is an admirable goal, and one of the greatest things about America is the drive of it's citizens to strive to climb higher up the ladder than their parents did (the "american dream" if you will), but I feel that you don't quite understand how difficult that actually is, especially in a recession. Unemployment is at about 8.5% right now, which while better than it has been the past couple of years, is still pretty bad; banks are unwilling to loan credit to people who really need it due to the fallout from the housing bubble crash; and college tuition costs continue to rise at a rate that exceeds inflation.
I will give you that 1) government will never be as efficient at charity work as actual charities and 2) that there's quite a bit of fraud in the US welfare system, but to me getting rid of food stamps for those below the poverty line sounds a bit too Dawrinian. Would it be better if they were no longer necessary? Obviously yes, but you'll never be able to get unemployment down to 0.0%...
...that being said, I honestly don't think raising the minimum wage is the answer, and to an extent I'm not convinced that even having a minimum wage is a good idea. A high minimum wage only increases inflation further, because companies will begin charging more for goods and services to counter-balance being mandated to pay their employees more. It also puts the unemployed at an even further disadvantage as the few dollars they have to their name become even more worthless. Finally, the higher the min. wage, the less employees [which translates to "less families" when we start talking about people with spouses and/or children] a small business can afford to support. I say "small business" and not "major corporations" here for a reason: they actually hire a larger portion of the total population than than Fortune 500 companies do.
Ice-eyes
Simper Fi
The theoretical disadvantages of the minimum wage have been empirically proven to be minimal.
America has very low social mobility compared to other countries with much bigger governments.
America has very low social mobility compared to other countries with much bigger governments.
Wait, what?
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
How about some Republican Primary news:
Santorum is leading Romney in Michigan in polls.
Pre-Iowa, who would have thought that Santorum would have a serious shot at the Republican nomination?
Santorum is leading Romney in Michigan in polls.
Pre-Iowa, who would have thought that Santorum would have a serious shot at the Republican nomination?
My boy Rick has no chance of winning this thing. Republican voters are just doing the same thing that they've been doing for over 6 months, looking at every candidate that isn't Mitt$$$ and trying to like them. They then realize that they should just stick with Mitt. There's really no question that Mitt is gonna be the nominee, the real question(for me @least) is will the Republicans have the fire in their hearts when it comes to supporting Mitt and opposing Obama?
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
Not me. If Romney gets the nomination I'm voting 3rd party for a 2nd season in a row. I refuse to vote for a candidate just because he's the sanctioned Republican. I really hope that last year proved that a good portion of the voters that Republicans need will not be excited for a candidate just because he's the party pick, but we'll see.
[youtube]DI8PlTtM7DU[/youtube]
As someone who actually lived in Massachusetts when Romney was a governor, I had to laugh at that clip symphonyx64. Mostly because he sounded like he was trying to convince himself
I'm in the same boat. It's pretty clear that none of the Republican candidates have my interests in mind. Namely, increasing personal freedoms, ending all of the wars, weakening the bridge between money and politics, shutting up about religion, fixing our broken health care system, fixing our broken student loan system, bettering our math and science education, among others...