Dear Clinton Supporters,

[WISD0MTREE]

If thats what you want.

What happens if the ones who want to do nothing exceed the amount of people who want to do stuff? Then who will pay for their lifestyle? 

[LordRahl2]

 

Your definition of Nanny State isn't clear itself. Going by my own, and the accepted version here where I am by allowing the personal social choices I am not pushing a Nanny State, but if it is or isn't doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Uh... not seeing it. Where does making polygamy & polyandry legal clash with removing censorship exactly? I can only assume some misunderstanding has happened here. By getting rid of outdated religious laws forbidding people to marry those they wish, that is freedom. By cutting out that blasted censorship people can more freely speak, be it politically, in the arts, or whatever else.

 

Well hey, we can at least together attack those "moderates". We do seem to even with the huge differences in beliefs agree in a lot of places.

 

 

Well his chances have hardly gone down thus far, but we'll see when it makes a triple threat.

Mmmmm, OK. His chances go down every time someone else leaves the field, but whatrver.

[Rozalia]

What happens if the ones who want to do nothing exceed the amount of people who want to do stuff? Then who will pay for their lifestyle? 

 

A basic income is enough to live on, but it isn't enough to satisfy everybody's wants in regards to material goods, success, their children's future, and so on. I don't thus feel it'd be an issue though if it is then changes can be made here and there. 

 

Mmmmm, OK. His chances go down every time someone else leaves the field, but whatrver.

 

That is what the word of the pundits is, but they've been wrong at seemingly every turn thus far so what would be another error at this point.

[LordRahl2]

A basic income is enough to live on, but it isn't enough to satisfy everybody's wants in regards to material goods, success, their children's future, and so on. I don't thus feel it'd be an issue though if it is then changes can be made here and there.

 

 

That is what the word of the pundits is, but they've been wrong at seemingly every turn thus far so what would be another error at this point.

That's my analysis. I don't actually pay attention, although my forum informed me of today's results and that Bush dropped out.

[Doktor Avalanche]

 

Your definition of Nanny State isn't clear itself. Going by my own, and the accepted version here where I am by allowing the personal social choices I am not pushing a Nanny State, but if it is or isn't doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Uh... not seeing it. Where does making polygamy & polyandry legal clash with removing censorship exactly?

Dammit! I read it as bigotry, not bigamy. I read and responded on my phone before. NVM. LOL

[Rozalia]

Dammit! I read it as bigotry, not bigamy. I read and responded on my phone before. NVM. LOL

 

Ah alright mate. 

 

That's my analysis. I don't actually pay attention, although my forum informed me of today's results and that Bush dropped out.

 

I see, alright. The established angle is that Trump has as many voters as he'll get so as people drop out they'll all just magically align with the establishment candidate left. Cruz is not such a man however and Rubio... well he is but if he got humiliated so heavily by Christie you have to wonder how bad it'll be when Trump turns the big guns on him (now that Bush is out).

[Eric]

With my limited knowledge of the US Election, it sounds like Hillary Clinton keeps on changing their stances on things as time passes and is a big show (Canada's Conservatives) and Bernie Sanders is adamant to his plans that may not be so good for the country.

 

In my opinion anyone with a brain would vote for Sanders, because I don't think if he really has an idiotic plan for the US the Parliament and House of Commons will really let it pass.

 

Wait nvm in the US it's a Congress isn't it? Sorry.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Eric

[WISD0MTREE]

A basic income is enough to live on, but it isn't enough to satisfy everybody's wants in regards to material goods, success, their children's future, and so on. I don't thus feel it'd be an issue though if it is then changes can be made here and there. 

"b-but muh income is too low" 

*elects someone who will raise it*

 

Now you have a problem. 

[LordRahl2]

Ah alright mate. 

 

 

I see, alright. The established angle is that Trump has as many voters as he'll get so as people drop out they'll all just magically align with the establishment candidate left. Cruz is not such a man however and Rubio... well he is but if he got humiliated so heavily by Christie you have to wonder how bad it'll be when Trump turns the big guns on him (now that Bush is out).

 

I suppose we will see, ya?

[Rozalia]

"b-but muh income is too low" 

*elects someone who will raise it*

 

Now you have a problem. 

 

Thats why you tie it to something, specially the amount needed to live. Of course leaving businesses free makes it too volatile so the government would have to exert control over certain things such as Energy, Food, Housing, Transport, Water, Internet for some off the top of my head, either through price controls or straight up nationalisation.

 

I suppose we will see, ya?

 

Ya.

[WISD0MTREE]

Thats why you tie it to something,

And what is that, exactly? You could tie it to inflation, but eventually a new need will come around. Notice how internet is almost a need now. 

[Kurdanak]

So serious question, are all you Sanders supporters going to stay at home in the general after Clinton wins or will you vote for her?

I'll always vote in an election, one way or another. Whether I'll be supporting Clinton if she wins the nomination or not is still in the air. It depends on the Republican nomination. As it stands right now, I'd likely vote with the Green Party for Jill Stein.

[Peter Quill]

As it stands right now, I'd likely vote with the Green Party for Jill Stein.

You really are our Resident Hippie. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Dylan Pascua

[Seryozha Nikanor]

If Sanders doesnt make it, screw it, I am voting for Trump because no way in hell am I voting for hillary.

[Rozalia]

And what is that, exactly? You could tie it to inflation, but eventually a new need will come around. Notice how internet is almost a need now. 

 

I already included Internet as one of the resources needing controlling. 

 

You tie it to the actual cost of living, the amount needed for the person to get by. Price controls or Nationalisation would have to be done to actually keep prices in check because if you let businesses handle things themselves they'll game things so instead of subsidising citizens, they'll instead be subsidising companies who'll jack up their prices more than they are already (likely yearly and not at once to be a bit more covert) knowing the government will have to pay as people need to have it. As such the government has to preemptively crush their greed so that cannot happen. 

[Glorton]

idk Trump and Hillary both have an equal chance of !@#$ing our country. 

[WISD0MTREE]

I already included Internet as one of the resources needing controlling. 

 

You tie it to the actual cost of living, the amount needed for the person to get by. Price controls or Nationalisation would have to be done to actually keep prices in check because if you let businesses handle things themselves they'll game things so instead of subsidising citizens, they'll instead be subsidising companies who'll jack up their prices more than they are already (likely yearly and not at once to be a bit more covert) knowing the government will have to pay as people need to have it. As such the government has to preemptively crush their greed so that cannot happen. 

Oh, I see where you are going with this now. 

 

I really don't want to type a paper or anything too long, but here is why I'm against that.

There are already established corporations who dominate the market. Let's use EA as an example. When you try to start up a business, you have to compete with those businesses. How does a small business compete with a larger corporation with more resources? They offer better services or cheaper services. Kind of like how Introversion made Prison Architect, released it, and they are still updating the game and adding content. Name one modern EA game where they have sufficient support, listen to complaints/suggestions, and adds free content. EA is charging $60-ish for their games with no support. On the other hand, Introversion could have charged over $60 for their game once people heard about it and the good developers. Price caps would get rid of that competition. Another example would be some small business near where I used to live. They were pretty much a Home Depot, but they offered a temporary PO box and small office for contractors. Even though they had to charge a little more, contractors still went there instead of HD. 

[Rozalia]

Oh, I see where you are going with this now. 

 

I really don't want to type a paper or anything too long, but here is why I'm against that.

There are already established corporations who dominate the market. Let's use EA as an example. When you try to start up a business, you have to compete with those businesses. How does a small business compete with a larger corporation with more resources? They offer better services or cheaper services. Kind of like how Introversion made Prison Architect, released it, and they are still updating the game and adding content. Name one modern EA game where they have sufficient support, listen to complaints/suggestions, and adds free content. EA is charging $60-ish for their games with no support. On the other hand, Introversion could have charged over $60 for their game once people heard about it and the good developers. Price caps would get rid of that competition. Another example would be some small business near where I used to live. They were pretty much a Home Depot, but they offered a temporary PO box and small office for contractors. Even though they had to charge a little more, contractors still went there instead of HD. 

 

You may have an actual point if reality actually worked like that but it does not. It varies from country to country no doubt, but what you get to see is a situation where this free market propaganda is championed but in reality it's a monopoly, one where real competition has no chance so the whole "competition means better services and cheaper prices" ideal doesn't make any real appearance. In certain markets such as energy the companies operate as basically a cartel, no point getting into costly price wars when you can all keep prices high especially if each companies have certain regions they've got heavier presence in. Transport such as the trains, yeah there are so many competing trains on the lines. It goes on, the ultimate goal of businesses is just that. Total domination is unsettling, even the most ignorant fellow can plainly see it, but champion the free market and share the top of the mountain with some others and you can fool a lot of people.

 

Of course government has made this possible, I agree with Asmodeus there. However it's not simply because government exists, but because government is ran by corrupt men who champion the free market but in reality are against it for they stack the deck for their masters in business. It's a balance of power and government is subservient to business so business will dominate and squeeze and squeeze the populace dry. To me the solution is quite simple, flip the paradigm and put those scoundrels in their proper place. 

 

Of course at this point to go against it is to go against the order that has been put in place. I've read of governments already having being sued for nationalising businesses they had no choice to due to the sheer incompetence/negligence. The TTIP and it's brother deal from what I know will only further enhance this. Governments will be heavily weakened (and they are already weak) when it comes to fixing the messes of such criminals as to do so is to have to pay obscene sums, even if it is being done because the private business has made a mess of things. More private companies will also be providing public services which will result in what that usually means, they'll jack up the price and provide a worse service which... they don't even need to worry about providing a bad service, for the government to cancel their contract (and these can be quite long) they'd be needing to be paid heavy compensation.

As such a country to break free must reject all such things and without mercy crush those villains, and they are villains, in certain markets and no garbage such as compensation or buying it off them. 

 

The leaders of this are both the US and the EU, an EU that socialists absolutely love for the most part. It's why I can't really call myself a socialist, socialists are part of the problem now and are just another piece for the elite to make use of. They've already infected Socialist parties so most are indistinguishable from Conservatives (who themselves have also been infected), but even better real socialists will also support them because they can't bring themselves to be against an entity that champions free movement, religious/cultural/whatever political correctness, internationalism, and all that other garbage.