Can't stump the Trump
Tags: Donald Trump
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
236 comments displayed.
#19
-
braus (12/01/2015) [-] 
Lauren Batchelder is senator staffer currently working in New Hampshire to promote Jeb Bush. As soon as she was found out she started deleting everything off her various internet accounts, but it's too late.
#103 to #41
-
valintina (12/02/2015) [-] Jeb was the Republican stooge that everyone complains about how politicians are just the same.
Donald Trump is a wild card who managed to **** up the plans of the SuperPACs and other major Republican donors. The Trump outlines the faults in both parties and pushes hard. For the majority of voters, Trump is that actual breath of fresh air that differentiates himself from the stench of the normal political processes.
Donald Trump is a wild card who managed to **** up the plans of the SuperPACs and other major Republican donors. The Trump outlines the faults in both parties and pushes hard. For the majority of voters, Trump is that actual breath of fresh air that differentiates himself from the stench of the normal political processes.
#107 to #103
-
praemium ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] Bush is a Constitutionalist, he, contrary to Sanders, believes that America should be above others and he is pro-aggressive foreign policy. He got my vote (if I were an American). I don't care that much for domestic issues, really, they rarely get changed anyways.
#119 to #107
-
valintina (12/02/2015) [-] Bush was nothing more than a so called politician who says he "Supports the Constitution."
Republicans have railed against the ACA aka "Obamacare" plan that has caused insurance plans to skyrocket in costs, even I was affected negatively from the so called "Affordable Care Act" which I have also been so strongly against in the first place.
Yet fast forward to now. The GOP have failed to put forth any semblance of effort to repeal the ACA. They have done nothing to even limit it, rather they just let it be since it benefits each politician while people like me are having a hard time trying to cover medical bills. The GOP has been nothing if not complicit with the Democrats. They are literally no different from each other.
Donald Trump saw this, and he wants to end the charades.
Republicans have railed against the ACA aka "Obamacare" plan that has caused insurance plans to skyrocket in costs, even I was affected negatively from the so called "Affordable Care Act" which I have also been so strongly against in the first place.
Yet fast forward to now. The GOP have failed to put forth any semblance of effort to repeal the ACA. They have done nothing to even limit it, rather they just let it be since it benefits each politician while people like me are having a hard time trying to cover medical bills. The GOP has been nothing if not complicit with the Democrats. They are literally no different from each other.
Donald Trump saw this, and he wants to end the charades.
#331 to #330
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] You lost an very important word there in his sentence: "with chronic conditions who COULDN´T get any insurance"
#332 to #331
-
valintina (12/02/2015) [-] Oh, so the majority of the public should have a harder time trying to uphold their daily life for the minority?
I know I will sound like an elitist snob, but when the value of a handful of people who suffer from problems is higher than the value of thousands of people trying to get by in life, there's a big problem with that. A few hundred lives should never be more valuable than millions.
I know I will sound like an elitist snob, but when the value of a handful of people who suffer from problems is higher than the value of thousands of people trying to get by in life, there's a big problem with that. A few hundred lives should never be more valuable than millions.
#333 to #332
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] Uhm no, you could just for example tax the rich People more, as they get far less hurt? We talk about the guys that earn 300.000 monthly. Take 40 % off his 300.000 brutto, and you that guy has still 10x more then most People get in half an ******* year, barely any Need to tax other peoples more.
Also if it is just an handfull of People, and you have 240 Million People working and giving taxes off, i think you are overdramatising then. It´s proven again and again, that even befor Obamacare that People in the US paid far more for what they got considering towards other countries in cases of healthcare.
You are one of the richest countrys in the world and want to literally tell the entire world you can´t even help this "handfull" of People that get literally no insurance, because no insurance would take them...
At most that sentence really? "A few hundred lives should never be more valuable than millions" no one ******* said that, what was said is, if each of this million would give just 2.5 Dollars monthly, this hundred could live through their already hard life, as there will be no privat insurance that would take them, but are still able then to have an relativly normal life. So unless you want to tell me this 2.5 Dollar would be to ******* killing you, i would tell you to get some better arguments and come back later.
Also if it is just an handfull of People, and you have 240 Million People working and giving taxes off, i think you are overdramatising then. It´s proven again and again, that even befor Obamacare that People in the US paid far more for what they got considering towards other countries in cases of healthcare.
You are one of the richest countrys in the world and want to literally tell the entire world you can´t even help this "handfull" of People that get literally no insurance, because no insurance would take them...
At most that sentence really? "A few hundred lives should never be more valuable than millions" no one ******* said that, what was said is, if each of this million would give just 2.5 Dollars monthly, this hundred could live through their already hard life, as there will be no privat insurance that would take them, but are still able then to have an relativly normal life. So unless you want to tell me this 2.5 Dollar would be to ******* killing you, i would tell you to get some better arguments and come back later.
#335 to #333
-
valintina (12/02/2015) [-] Then all you are doing is giving less incentive for people to get rich, thus killing progress and allowing things to either stagnate or deteriorate. What's the point of getting a pay raise at work if that raise is just going to go towards taxes? You are punishing success, which is absolutely backwards. We are the richest country in the world because we reward success, not punish it.
As to giving just 2.5 dollars monthly, then what happens? You are just giving more incentive for those who are struggling to not get themselves out of that position. In the US we have a ******** of people working entry level jobs who want to be paid off the books, so they can keep gaining benefits and not pay taxes through federal and state programs. I know this myself because I work in retail businesses that always refuse to hire such people, the amount that try this astound me.
You try having a few part-time jobs under your belt, paying almost 10% of your income in taxes off the bat, having to pay even more taxes on the food to feed yourself and the gas to get to work. On top of that, paying electrical and the water bill, while paying the bills for your room, and don't forget the air conditioning and the heat.
Then you will come to be disgusted at taxes, and how much of it is going to social security for a retirement you will never have because you are paying so much through the ass to keep the government afloat.
THEN! And only then you can talk to me about being so goddamn selfish for not being willing to donate a ******* penny to the poor and disadvataged.
As to giving just 2.5 dollars monthly, then what happens? You are just giving more incentive for those who are struggling to not get themselves out of that position. In the US we have a ******** of people working entry level jobs who want to be paid off the books, so they can keep gaining benefits and not pay taxes through federal and state programs. I know this myself because I work in retail businesses that always refuse to hire such people, the amount that try this astound me.
You try having a few part-time jobs under your belt, paying almost 10% of your income in taxes off the bat, having to pay even more taxes on the food to feed yourself and the gas to get to work. On top of that, paying electrical and the water bill, while paying the bills for your room, and don't forget the air conditioning and the heat.
Then you will come to be disgusted at taxes, and how much of it is going to social security for a retirement you will never have because you are paying so much through the ass to keep the government afloat.
THEN! And only then you can talk to me about being so goddamn selfish for not being willing to donate a ******* penny to the poor and disadvataged.
#336 to #335
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] I don´t know about you, but i have plently of assumptions that people want to earn more, regardless. The Thing is when it Comes to the math, it works. You can´t pull more Money out of people that have any, but people that have so much Money, that 5% are already 1.000+ while it does not even ******* hurt them in any given way, just works fine. There were times in your Country where high taxes and high Quality in goverment Services went Hand in Hand.
Btw i can tell you already there, that an pseudo survive for the fittest Country does not work. Maybe you haven´t noticed it, but somehow the rest of the world works splendind even with all this. Wanna know how much i get taxed? Wait... ah yes roughly 33% total of my brutto... Hmm interesting, through this i have at the end of the week still... 1400 roughly, which is enough to pay my rent, my car, and anything else i have over the month. Now let´s see what my father earns... he has taxes of 42% and roughly netto 2800... Thats already quit an bit more... Now let´s see if i can also remember how far my Boss earns from the last cristmess Party as he was drunk and told out... Roughly 15.000 including his 50% taxes, and after 50% there is no raise in taxes.
Hmm... Interesting, it´s somehow like even though the taxes went greater, they still have so much ******* Money, that it´s literally not even noticable and still would inspire people to get this amount of Money... mmm funny.
"You try having a few part-time Jobs" Already, from moving help to helper for old people to pretty much anything until i got my real Job, i was unemployed, and got after 40 hours not more then 400 (also got 400 unemployment each month, as Long as i did not earn more then 400 an month to ensure i could get over the rounds, including housing, my electricity bills ect.)
So no, i am not some teen you Little joke, i am literally already employed with an real Job and actuell cash that i get from 40 hours month work. Come again when you think you can go down from this hige horse you are you sack of Snobs.
Btw i can tell you already there, that an pseudo survive for the fittest Country does not work. Maybe you haven´t noticed it, but somehow the rest of the world works splendind even with all this. Wanna know how much i get taxed? Wait... ah yes roughly 33% total of my brutto... Hmm interesting, through this i have at the end of the week still... 1400 roughly, which is enough to pay my rent, my car, and anything else i have over the month. Now let´s see what my father earns... he has taxes of 42% and roughly netto 2800... Thats already quit an bit more... Now let´s see if i can also remember how far my Boss earns from the last cristmess Party as he was drunk and told out... Roughly 15.000 including his 50% taxes, and after 50% there is no raise in taxes.
Hmm... Interesting, it´s somehow like even though the taxes went greater, they still have so much ******* Money, that it´s literally not even noticable and still would inspire people to get this amount of Money... mmm funny.
"You try having a few part-time Jobs" Already, from moving help to helper for old people to pretty much anything until i got my real Job, i was unemployed, and got after 40 hours not more then 400 (also got 400 unemployment each month, as Long as i did not earn more then 400 an month to ensure i could get over the rounds, including housing, my electricity bills ect.)
So no, i am not some teen you Little joke, i am literally already employed with an real Job and actuell cash that i get from 40 hours month work. Come again when you think you can go down from this hige horse you are you sack of Snobs.
#274 to #119
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] I don´t want to be mean now, but the Integration of an universal healthcare plan was always a bit shaky for every Country.
Not even to Forget that Obamacare went that rough and unfinished, because more then 50% of the seats in Washington had republicans. That the plan came out at all is almost an ******* miracle, and could have been build better, if the republics wouldn´t have tried to throw as many logs between it´s legs as they could find and instead would have activly tried to make it an GOOD and WORKING plan.
But yeah it supports your Statement that both Partys are greedy assholes and wouldn´t Chance **** if it would actuelly bring Money into their pockets. You can just hope now that the next candidate will be reasonble enough to force the idiots in Washington to grab their ass cheeks, sit down on their freaking places, and discuss how to make Obamacare actuelly usefull for the People, as it was meant to be.
Not even to Forget that Obamacare went that rough and unfinished, because more then 50% of the seats in Washington had republicans. That the plan came out at all is almost an ******* miracle, and could have been build better, if the republics wouldn´t have tried to throw as many logs between it´s legs as they could find and instead would have activly tried to make it an GOOD and WORKING plan.
But yeah it supports your Statement that both Partys are greedy assholes and wouldn´t Chance **** if it would actuelly bring Money into their pockets. You can just hope now that the next candidate will be reasonble enough to force the idiots in Washington to grab their ass cheeks, sit down on their freaking places, and discuss how to make Obamacare actuelly usefull for the People, as it was meant to be.
#329 to #274
-
valintina (12/02/2015) [-] It has affected the Middle Class Americans, especially me, a lot. The ACA might benefit the lower class, but for the Middle Class working at Fortune 500 companies, working to support their family of four, and trying to make house and car payments, the ACA is a literal wallet rape.
Costs have skyrocketed. Politicians say that they want to increase the middle class, but that's a load of ******** . All they have done is made it harder for people like me to get by, going paycheck to paycheck paying bills owed on a car, on a room, on even the regular medical bills before the ACA was covered.
Before the ACA, I had a great medical plan that would provide me with extra spare parts for my cochlear implant in case if it failed on me. Now I had to downgrade to a medical plan where if my implant fails, I have to go a few days of not being able to hear anything until I get a replacement. This is further ******* me in the ass when I have to work those days. Try showing up to work with ear plugs in the whole day and not taking them out.
Costs have skyrocketed. Politicians say that they want to increase the middle class, but that's a load of ******** . All they have done is made it harder for people like me to get by, going paycheck to paycheck paying bills owed on a car, on a room, on even the regular medical bills before the ACA was covered.
Before the ACA, I had a great medical plan that would provide me with extra spare parts for my cochlear implant in case if it failed on me. Now I had to downgrade to a medical plan where if my implant fails, I have to go a few days of not being able to hear anything until I get a replacement. This is further ******* me in the ass when I have to work those days. Try showing up to work with ear plugs in the whole day and not taking them out.
#1
-
evilhomer ONLINE (12/01/2015) [-] **evilhomer used "*roll picture*"**
**evilhomer rolled image**
I'm not a Trump supporter, heck I'm not even USA citizen
But that should be common sense. If there is a job, if you do it well enough you should get paid accordingly, no less or no more just because you're a certain color, gender or sexuality. You do a good job, you get paid.
**evilhomer rolled image**
I'm not a Trump supporter, heck I'm not even USA citizen
But that should be common sense. If there is a job, if you do it well enough you should get paid accordingly, no less or no more just because you're a certain color, gender or sexuality. You do a good job, you get paid.
#224 to #1
-
zaphodcoolfrood (12/02/2015) [-]
Yeah, sure, but just because it's common sense doesn't mean it's happening though.
#279 to #224
-
silverzepher (12/02/2015) [-] www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm
just because a woman refuses to barter for her wages doesn't mean i should suffer because of it.
just because a woman refuses to barter for her wages doesn't mean i should suffer because of it.
#295 to #293
-
silverzepher (12/02/2015) [-] ms.killed hp has nothing on trump, trump actually created and ran businesses,, that succeed. he even admits to abusing the laws on his business, and brings up some good points, so if my local kkk leader and the ****** team up i think this will be a fun election.
#300 to #297
-
gaddy (12/02/2015) [-] California.. solemnly... really.. I'd like to think America is in order.. but, no.. Donald Trump is an unreasonable reasonability I may actually root for.. although I'm still not what for yet.. He's actually rich enough to not have to follow in a republican or democratic stance.. if he's secret John F Kennedy status, don't tell ne 1
#310 to #224
-
fragman (12/02/2015) [-]
Just gonna say this: If you don't sue based on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 you probably already know it's not a discrimination yourself.
All the prominent gender wage gap statistics rely on fallacious forms of data collection/analasys because there really aren't any higher level jobs that can be achieved and then compared properly. Because everyone has a slightly different way of getting there. If you try to compare what would be comparable, you'll have a really hard time finding a usable sample size. For example, if you decide to not work for 5 years due to having a family and then work part time for say 10 years, you're obviously gonna end up with a lower income after that time than you would've if you'd worked full time continuously. No matter whether you're a man or a woman. Similarly, working full time as a doctor sounds comparable but going into pediatrics (a field more popular with women) will usually result in lower average pay than neurosurgery (a field more popular with men). But based mom explains it better than I ever could: www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w
All the prominent gender wage gap statistics rely on fallacious forms of data collection/analasys because there really aren't any higher level jobs that can be achieved and then compared properly. Because everyone has a slightly different way of getting there. If you try to compare what would be comparable, you'll have a really hard time finding a usable sample size. For example, if you decide to not work for 5 years due to having a family and then work part time for say 10 years, you're obviously gonna end up with a lower income after that time than you would've if you'd worked full time continuously. No matter whether you're a man or a woman. Similarly, working full time as a doctor sounds comparable but going into pediatrics (a field more popular with women) will usually result in lower average pay than neurosurgery (a field more popular with men). But based mom explains it better than I ever could: www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w
#53 to #1
-
thedugster (12/01/2015) [-] 2 points bro
-No sane person wants Trump as president. The only reason he's winning in the polls as the republican nominee is because all the other candidates are worse or Kasich
-Pay is non-discriminatory in the US when you take into account position and experience. The one study that is quoted all the time took the average wage of women vs the average wage of men which is basically useless to determine discrimination.
-No sane person wants Trump as president. The only reason he's winning in the polls as the republican nominee is because all the other candidates are worse or Kasich
-Pay is non-discriminatory in the US when you take into account position and experience. The one study that is quoted all the time took the average wage of women vs the average wage of men which is basically useless to determine discrimination.
#112 to #53
-
neocontotherescue (12/02/2015) [-] Yeah a lot of sane people want Trump as president. **** off you leftwing retard.
#179 to #133
-
anon (12/02/2015) [-]
I have a relative who is old enough to vote, I don't know her age because bugger all if I care about my families ages. All I know is she's in her 20's, had three children All of which were separated fathers I believe, and who's ethnicities strongly supports a streotype and not really doing well with her life considering how off she seems to be sanity wise. She doesn't give a **** about politics, but she has stated that she hates Trump and won't vote for him purely because he looks ugly and has "nasty ass hair". She instead is voting for hillary because "hillary is a woman and will help women"
So what i'm basically saying is that a large population of the american public is ******* mental when it comes to politics due to how they base their opinions. Some portion voted for Obama because they "didn't want to be racist". Don't expect anyone to not be mental in an area such as politics, especially in this years election where no candidate is good enough to not **** up majorly in the publics eye. Then again all presidents have been **** to some extent to a lot of people. So how about we all just **** off with the "debate" over who's presidents better and just look at some nice jokes.
So what i'm basically saying is that a large population of the american public is ******* mental when it comes to politics due to how they base their opinions. Some portion voted for Obama because they "didn't want to be racist". Don't expect anyone to not be mental in an area such as politics, especially in this years election where no candidate is good enough to not **** up majorly in the publics eye. Then again all presidents have been **** to some extent to a lot of people. So how about we all just **** off with the "debate" over who's presidents better and just look at some nice jokes.
#254 to #200
-
thesupervillian (12/02/2015) [-] Well I never said she was a good decision, just that all the decisions are awful.
Plus the relative i'm referring to is honestly off her rocker. She chooses people that are obviously suffering from anger issues as her lovers, she is above average weight, and also at one point tried to convince my sister to have an inscetous relationship with her but didn't understand why my sister thought she was being creepy. I honestly just felt like putting that out there in hopes of underlining how bad of a decision maker she is.
Plus the relative i'm referring to is honestly off her rocker. She chooses people that are obviously suffering from anger issues as her lovers, she is above average weight, and also at one point tried to convince my sister to have an inscetous relationship with her but didn't understand why my sister thought she was being creepy. I honestly just felt like putting that out there in hopes of underlining how bad of a decision maker she is.
#272 to #144
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] > knows to be poor
> Trump
Jesus i though just anons could **** this hard up... That guy was Born with an silver spoon in his mouth and in his ass. That guy had NEVER to expect to eat just once an day for weeks nor did he ever to fear that he will not be able to pay the bills.
> Trump
Jesus i though just anons could **** this hard up... That guy was Born with an silver spoon in his mouth and in his ass. That guy had NEVER to expect to eat just once an day for weeks nor did he ever to fear that he will not be able to pay the bills.
#306 to #272
-
toosexyforyou (12/02/2015) [-] Can't say he didn't work hard to get to where he is though.
#307 to #306
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] He got his first Company from his father... LITERALLY. He didn´t worked anything up, he got lots of cash and an good start from begin with.
I know People that ripped themself their ass open just to even make their own Business and work still up to today in there, Trump never even had to do this!
Also the Argument was about trump ever having expierenced beeing poor, which he never did.
I know People that ripped themself their ass open just to even make their own Business and work still up to today in there, Trump never even had to do this!
Also the Argument was about trump ever having expierenced beeing poor, which he never did.
#309 to #307
-
toosexyforyou (12/02/2015) [-] He didn't start from nothing, we know that. He went from 1 million dollars (if you believe his claim that he was given 1 million dollars from his father to start his own business) and now he's worth 4 billion. My family makes 5 figures, I will be making 5-6 figures. You can't say he didn't work hard because he started with nothing. He turned 1 million into 4 billion.
#312 to #309
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] that´s not the ******* Point, the Point was and is that he was never poor.
"Why is that even a bad thing? If anything, he knows what it's like to be poor and making him President can give him the power to fix it." performs entire sentence was an Oxymoron, trump was never poor, theirfore he wouldn´t even have an idea how it is.
You Trump fanboy just want to make him Sound good be changing the ******* subject of this discussion, which is still "Trump was never poor" the Point is not if he worked to get 4 Billion, the Point is "THAT HE WAS NEVER POOR" Come back if you talk about the **** that get´s discussed or start your discussion somewhere else.
"Why is that even a bad thing? If anything, he knows what it's like to be poor and making him President can give him the power to fix it." performs entire sentence was an Oxymoron, trump was never poor, theirfore he wouldn´t even have an idea how it is.
You Trump fanboy just want to make him Sound good be changing the ******* subject of this discussion, which is still "Trump was never poor" the Point is not if he worked to get 4 Billion, the Point is "THAT HE WAS NEVER POOR" Come back if you talk about the **** that get´s discussed or start your discussion somewhere else.
#154 to #127
-
markipliergame (12/02/2015) [-] >implying you understand what filing for bankruptcy actually means
#184 to #127
-
priestoftheoldones (12/02/2015) [-] He filed bankruptcy multiple times but is still filthy ******* rich.
#242 to #127
-
fondlemywang (12/02/2015) [-]
this is so overused its hilarious. You dont have to be broke to file for bankruptcy, and it was his casino not himself that filed it. He sold bonds for his casino to get money to expand and **** , and then when it was time to pay the bondholders the $500 million that he owed he filed 'bankruptcy' so instead of having to pay them he could instead give them shares of his company equal to what he owed them. He still had majority shares so he was still in charge and didnt have to pay out of pocket. If his business was actually failing why would people keep lending him money?
#201 to #53
-
shinycharizard (12/02/2015) [-] Or maybe because I'm not economically retarded, I know better than to place my faith in a man who promises "free everything", at the expense of the middle class.
#185 to #53
-
stinkbugfrick (12/02/2015) [-] Only the dumbest people who haven't done their research still believe the ******** of unequal pay, if you work the same job you get the same pay, it's been that way for quite a few years.
#188 to #53
-
slapchoppin (12/02/2015) [-] Trump is the best choice overall though
he's the only candidate that actually seems like a patriot (a very important quality in the leader of your country) and he's the only one thats not a pushover
he's the only candidate that actually seems like a patriot (a very important quality in the leader of your country) and he's the only one thats not a pushover
#63 to #60
-
thedugster (12/01/2015) [-] Kasich is the only nominee who i can take seriously. Too bad he's at the bottom of the pols
#83 to #63
-
angelusprimus (12/02/2015) [-] I like Kasic too.
I'd prefer to vote for a moderate republican, but if whats floating on top stays on top I'm voting Dem.
Which sucks, I'd much prefer a good moderate Rep.
I'd prefer to vote for a moderate republican, but if whats floating on top stays on top I'm voting Dem.
Which sucks, I'd much prefer a good moderate Rep.
#143 to #83
-
hawaiiansuperman (12/02/2015) [-]
trump is really just a dick. his economic policies are good though, and voting trump is still better than hillary. trump is far more honest than that lying whore. and the others are all too far liberal for me too. but thats just my personal opinion.
#174 to #143
-
angelusprimus (12/02/2015) [-] Trump's economic policies are not very good.
They are the continuation of a same policies that reps have been doing since Reagan.
Which worked great in Reagan's era and now they are incapable of admitting they no longer work. Reaganomics work when you have a massive production society with massive blue collar workforce.
BUT once you move toward an society that is service based with a lack of production jobs Reaganomics don't work. If you don't have a growing production with a growing production labor force (Which Reagan did) capital gets too concentrated and stays outside of most population's access. Which in turn reduces purchasing power, which we are now combating with a debt economy which can only go for so long,
We need to go back to pre-Reagan economic policies, such as Nixon's. Cutting down on welfare doesn't do **** if we keep spending so much on corporate welfare.
His economic policies would virtually guarantee that China beats us before 2030. They are just not reflective of our current climate.
Second, who in the right mind would want Trump to be our leader in a ******* powderkeg of the world right now? Last thing we need is Trump blurting something out to Putin, or insulting Chinese leadership and then refuses to apologize. Like mocking a disabled person. (and he did, and if you don't think he did you are seriously naive).
I'd rather have a lying whore who can competently navigate ****** situations, than a guy who thinks bluster and arrogance can replace intelligence and competence.
I'd rather NOT have Hillary, but if its between Trump and Hillary... **** it.
They are the continuation of a same policies that reps have been doing since Reagan.
Which worked great in Reagan's era and now they are incapable of admitting they no longer work. Reaganomics work when you have a massive production society with massive blue collar workforce.
BUT once you move toward an society that is service based with a lack of production jobs Reaganomics don't work. If you don't have a growing production with a growing production labor force (Which Reagan did) capital gets too concentrated and stays outside of most population's access. Which in turn reduces purchasing power, which we are now combating with a debt economy which can only go for so long,
We need to go back to pre-Reagan economic policies, such as Nixon's. Cutting down on welfare doesn't do **** if we keep spending so much on corporate welfare.
His economic policies would virtually guarantee that China beats us before 2030. They are just not reflective of our current climate.
Second, who in the right mind would want Trump to be our leader in a ******* powderkeg of the world right now? Last thing we need is Trump blurting something out to Putin, or insulting Chinese leadership and then refuses to apologize. Like mocking a disabled person. (and he did, and if you don't think he did you are seriously naive).
I'd rather have a lying whore who can competently navigate ****** situations, than a guy who thinks bluster and arrogance can replace intelligence and competence.
I'd rather NOT have Hillary, but if its between Trump and Hillary... **** it.
#212 to #174
-
thedugster (12/02/2015) [-] if it's between hillary and trump im ill be taking a 4 year extended vacation out of this country
#273 to #174
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] I don´t get why you get downvoted... You made 100% sense.
In times where rough material production get´s reduced in favor for an Service industry, it´s better to stop such silly low Taxing politics for companys, in the hope that the industry has some miracle growth from which anyone would Profit. Money has to get back into Motion, from the places where it´s hoarded in absolut unreasonble amount so it get´s back to actuelly doing anything.
2. any beeing that is in the right state of mind wouldn´t want an fool like this to represent their Country, hell this guy is almost an perfect caricatur of all the negativ preconception People have towards the US: Arrogant, bigmouthed, ignorant, greedy **** that screams 24/7 "MURRICA!"
Hell it´s to easy to make caricaturs about Trump, that guy is already an living one.
In times where rough material production get´s reduced in favor for an Service industry, it´s better to stop such silly low Taxing politics for companys, in the hope that the industry has some miracle growth from which anyone would Profit. Money has to get back into Motion, from the places where it´s hoarded in absolut unreasonble amount so it get´s back to actuelly doing anything.
2. any beeing that is in the right state of mind wouldn´t want an fool like this to represent their Country, hell this guy is almost an perfect caricatur of all the negativ preconception People have towards the US: Arrogant, bigmouthed, ignorant, greedy **** that screams 24/7 "MURRICA!"
Hell it´s to easy to make caricaturs about Trump, that guy is already an living one.
#268 to #174
-
anon (12/02/2015) [-]
technically its not reaganomics, its letting people keep and spend for themselves the money that they earned and not taxing them at 70%. This current "climate" exists because of govt policies that promote dependancy and degeneracy at the expense of the worker. We need more "Reaganomics" not less.
#328 to #268
-
angelusprimus (12/02/2015) [-] No, what we need to do with tax policies is to reward those that create jobs. Like Nixon did, not just keep the taxes low with no obligations.
Some corporations are leaving our country because corporate tax is too high. So lets lower it for every corporation that increases labor force and/or average salary not counting the management. Thus instead of a lot of money going to the government most of it money goes to the workers and company gets to keep some and everyone benefits.
If we just lower the tax rate then the investors take the profits and invest them in high frequency trading and no one but super rich see any benefits and money is out of the circulation for all practical purposes.
Reps want to just lower the taxes, Dems want to tax and have government do everything, when we should be doing what smart Reps in the past did and reward those who's business policies benefit our country.
Some corporations are leaving our country because corporate tax is too high. So lets lower it for every corporation that increases labor force and/or average salary not counting the management. Thus instead of a lot of money going to the government most of it money goes to the workers and company gets to keep some and everyone benefits.
If we just lower the tax rate then the investors take the profits and invest them in high frequency trading and no one but super rich see any benefits and money is out of the circulation for all practical purposes.
Reps want to just lower the taxes, Dems want to tax and have government do everything, when we should be doing what smart Reps in the past did and reward those who's business policies benefit our country.
#210 to #1
-
anon (12/02/2015) [-]
See, I agree with you, and I'm gonna include personal facts along with it. I recently got hired by a local organization with a starting pay of 22.70/hour, which is pretty decent. Now I am a man, and in my academy class, we had 7 men (myself included) and two women. After a month of training, one of the females was let go due to unsatisfactory performance, but until that moment, everyone in the class was and is paid the same. Hell, going down the chain of command, 2 or 3 of the 10 highest paid positions are held by females, and I can attest that every single one of those 10 has earned that position through hard work and effort, not through having it handed to them on a silver platter, any one of them.
#236 to #210
-
bigswingingrichard (12/02/2015) [-] bro what the **** are you doing with a 22.70$ starting wage? Where can I sign up?
#264 to #236
-
Elifaien (12/02/2015) [-] **Elifaien used "*roll picture*"**
**Elifaien rolled image**I too would like to know, as a temp I had a starting wage of $13/hour before incentives. After being hired on it was bumped to $16/hour. Now there are also $0.60 incentives for it being the overnight shift, and 12 hour shifts, so it's really $17.20/hour, but c'mon 22.70 sounds a lot better.
**Elifaien rolled image**I too would like to know, as a temp I had a starting wage of $13/hour before incentives. After being hired on it was bumped to $16/hour. Now there are also $0.60 incentives for it being the overnight shift, and 12 hour shifts, so it's really $17.20/hour, but c'mon 22.70 sounds a lot better.
#338 to #236
-
ahumaya ONLINE (12/03/2015) [-] Look into entry level law enforcement, like at a jail or booking officer, not only are they a great starting point for a career, but they often pay pretty great. The county you live in will have a lot of influence on how well you'd be treated, but be aware you can work in jurisdictions outside of your home.
#339 to #338
-
bigswingingrichard (12/03/2015) [-] I figured it was law enforcement, which if actually what I want to do, so this makes it that much more on board and what not.
#341 to #340
-
bigswingingrichard (12/03/2015) [-] Pretty much the reason I want to do it is ethics and morals. It gives me a real chance to be an honest person and be a good role model, although I am not very outgoing.
#342 to #341
-
ahumaya ONLINE (12/03/2015) [-] Hey, current statistics show that most officers and deputies are introverted, so that's fine. And hey, I think the best part about the field is being able to honestly and wholly trust all of my coworkers until proven otherwise, rather than having to have coworkers earn trust.
#54 to #1
-
samoaspider (12/01/2015) [-] I had the same damn thing on my mind.
On a minimum wage job (lets say McDonalds janitor) a man and woman earn equal pay.
On a average+ paid job (lets say java, c++ coder) a man and a woman STILL earn equal.
etc
watcha doin later, pretty boy?
On a minimum wage job (lets say McDonalds janitor) a man and woman earn equal pay.
On a average+ paid job (lets say java, c++ coder) a man and a woman STILL earn equal.
etc
watcha doin later, pretty boy?
#37 to #1
-
thegreatpepe (12/01/2015) [-] Same position, Same amount of time been there, Same education, Same work output, Same hours
=
Same pay
=
Same pay
#221 to #37
-
zaphodcoolfrood (12/02/2015) [-]
It kinda depends on your salary negotiation skills, if an employer thinks they can get away with paying you less, they will.
That's why there is a social stigma about discussing salary in the workplace.
That's why there is a social stigma about discussing salary in the workplace.
#225 to #221
-
thegreatpepe (12/02/2015) [-] That would apply to EVERYBODY, except those that decide those things. ( which aren't many people)
No gender, sexuality, or racial discrimination there
No gender, sexuality, or racial discrimination there
#226 to #225
-
zaphodcoolfrood (12/02/2015) [-]
Well no, it literally happens right now. Employers believe that woman and minorities will except lower salaries, so that's what they offer them, and statistically they're right.
#228 to #226
-
thegreatpepe (12/02/2015) [-] Should've included that in the original comment. Without it, your comment is pretty random, and meaningless.
#237 to #228
-
zaphodcoolfrood (12/02/2015) [-]
Not really, I was contradicting you. If anything, your comment is more random and meaningless, seeing as it's just flat wrong, and a ridiculous idea to have about the world.
#239 to #237
-
thegreatpepe (12/02/2015) [-] You're right! Equal service, and trust between employer and employee is terrible!
Also, RANDOM = IRRELEVANT Post I was orginally replying to: " If there is a job, if you do it well enough you should get paid accordingly, no less or no more just because you're a certain color, gender or sexuality. You do a good job, you get paid. " Look what you've done, even the supreme leader is in distress!
Also, RANDOM = IRRELEVANT Post I was orginally replying to: " If there is a job, if you do it well enough you should get paid accordingly, no less or no more just because you're a certain color, gender or sexuality. You do a good job, you get paid. " Look what you've done, even the supreme leader is in distress!
#251 to #240
-
thegreatpepe (12/02/2015) [-] No **** I'm wrong. I'm saying what it probably should be. Also, if that is NOT the case, and you are saying I'm wrong just because you say so, you are just as bad as dos tumblerina.
Secondly: I expanded, and simplified the topic. Making it easier to read, and made it more complete. RELEVANT. PURPOSEFUL. Not random, and meaningless.
Your comment failed to mean anything because the topic is DISCRIMINATION, and your comment was about everybody getting equally less pay. This does nothing for the topic. This has nothing to do with the topic. No purpose. Not relevant. However, you combated this fact with your next comment. The original comment meant nothing without its counterpart albeit you did provide at one point, giving it purpose.
I am saying how I think it should be, you are saying how it currently is. My comment is not wrong compared to yours.
Thirdsly: You can't enforce who is right, an who is wrong, unless there are facts. Which there aren't. You can't have facts about the future. Nobody can. (unless you're a time travelling person. please don't claim to be).
Fourth't'ly: I don't give a **** how you presented it. If you give PURPOSEFUL information, but to a IRRELEVANT topic, your comment, there, is meaningless, and random. If you give PURPOSELESS information, your comment is random, and meaningless. Your comment HAD (past-tense) an unfulfilled purpose. If I had not responded, you would have left it that way. With one purposeful, and relevant comment, and one random, and meaningless comment. You've changed that now.
Sorry if this was long. Sorry if I repeated myself ten times. However, you've treaded into fallacy territory, and started throwing **** at me. I'm interested in a conversation, not a ****** battle. Not really interested anymore. Bye!
Secondly: I expanded, and simplified the topic. Making it easier to read, and made it more complete. RELEVANT. PURPOSEFUL. Not random, and meaningless.
Your comment failed to mean anything because the topic is DISCRIMINATION, and your comment was about everybody getting equally less pay. This does nothing for the topic. This has nothing to do with the topic. No purpose. Not relevant. However, you combated this fact with your next comment. The original comment meant nothing without its counterpart albeit you did provide at one point, giving it purpose.
I am saying how I think it should be, you are saying how it currently is. My comment is not wrong compared to yours.
Thirdsly: You can't enforce who is right, an who is wrong, unless there are facts. Which there aren't. You can't have facts about the future. Nobody can. (unless you're a time travelling person. please don't claim to be).
Fourth't'ly: I don't give a **** how you presented it. If you give PURPOSEFUL information, but to a IRRELEVANT topic, your comment, there, is meaningless, and random. If you give PURPOSELESS information, your comment is random, and meaningless. Your comment HAD (past-tense) an unfulfilled purpose. If I had not responded, you would have left it that way. With one purposeful, and relevant comment, and one random, and meaningless comment. You've changed that now.
Sorry if this was long. Sorry if I repeated myself ten times. However, you've treaded into fallacy territory, and started throwing **** at me. I'm interested in a conversation, not a ****** battle. Not really interested anymore. Bye!
#11
-
europe (12/01/2015) [-] >little kid believes in the wage gap
Get out
Also what does she mean with "Do I get to do whatever I want with my body" or whatever she said along the lines of that Is abortion illegal in her state or something?
Get out
Also what does she mean with "Do I get to do whatever I want with my body" or whatever she said along the lines of that Is abortion illegal in her state or something?
#44 to #11
-
bobtombobbob (12/01/2015) [-] The wage gap exist
Life is not a 4chan thread
Click to show spoiler
Life is not a 4chan thread
#55 to #44
-
unfitninjuh (12/01/2015) [-] it exists because women are more prone to go into ******** fields like gender studies. It's never the engineers or the pop stars bar Emma Watson that complain about it.
#66 to #55
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Wage gap refers to the inequality in pay in the same jobs
Does not have a damn thing to do with gender studies
Does not have a damn thing to do with gender studies
#100 to #66
-
nebuelaeus (12/02/2015) [-]
There is no such thing. Men and women in the same field almost always make the same wages, women are actually more likely to be paid more than men.
The "wage gap" from that study i don't remember what the name of it was that everyone quotes was comparing all men to all women across all jobs. Meaning that it since women are more likely to take supporting and nurturing jobs (which pay less) and men are more likely to take jobs that pay more, like scientists or engineers, men as a whole make more money.
Do you think that a female preschool teacher should make as much money as a male neurosurgeon? No? Then stop saying there is a wage gap, because there isn't. at least not between men and women
The "wage gap" from that study i don't remember what the name of it was that everyone quotes was comparing all men to all women across all jobs. Meaning that it since women are more likely to take supporting and nurturing jobs (which pay less) and men are more likely to take jobs that pay more, like scientists or engineers, men as a whole make more money.
Do you think that a female preschool teacher should make as much money as a male neurosurgeon? No? Then stop saying there is a wage gap, because there isn't. at least not between men and women
#111 to #104
-
nebuelaeus (12/02/2015) [-]
The wage gap this woman is referring to, and the one that literally everyone else in this entire damn comment section is talking about, is the claimed "wage gap" that feminists talk about between men and women, which compares all jobs between all men and women.
Your inability to understand a simple conversation does not make me retarded. It makes you ignorant and stubborn.
Your inability to understand a simple conversation does not make me retarded. It makes you ignorant and stubborn.
#114 to #111
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Read this.
Wage gap = inequality in pay in the same jobs
Wage gap =/= The difference in pay between a teacher and a brain surgeon
Wage gap = inequality in pay in the same jobs
Wage gap =/= The difference in pay between a teacher and a brain surgeon
#124 to #114
-
nebuelaeus (12/02/2015) [-]
I don't care about your definition for a specific phrase.
We are having a conversation, and in this conversation the phrase wage gap has been used. it was used to describe a claimed gap between men and women, across all jobs. It no longer matter what you think the proper definition of wage gap is, because it is no longer being used that way. Get that through your thick skull. no one gives a **** that you think we are using a phrase wrong. the point of the ******* comment was to dispute your idiot claim that a wage gap exists between men and women, which is ******* wrong. so stop replying to me saying that i am using the goddamn phrase wrong, i dont give a **** . that was not the point of the comment.
and just to shut you the **** up. the definition of wage gap is a difference in pay between two groups. no where in the phrase "wage gap" do i see the words "in a specific occupation"
We are having a conversation, and in this conversation the phrase wage gap has been used. it was used to describe a claimed gap between men and women, across all jobs. It no longer matter what you think the proper definition of wage gap is, because it is no longer being used that way. Get that through your thick skull. no one gives a **** that you think we are using a phrase wrong. the point of the ******* comment was to dispute your idiot claim that a wage gap exists between men and women, which is ******* wrong. so stop replying to me saying that i am using the goddamn phrase wrong, i dont give a **** . that was not the point of the comment.
and just to shut you the **** up. the definition of wage gap is a difference in pay between two groups. no where in the phrase "wage gap" do i see the words "in a specific occupation"
#128 to #124
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Man your parents must be so proud of you.
It is a God damned miracle that you even learned how to read.
People are not fighting to have a baby sitter payed the same as a brain surgeon
They are complaining that female workers make less for doing the same work as the male worker with the same job.
What is your argument even?
>Uh some anon cuck said they wants to hab the same pay as a brain doktor when they is a baby sitter
Now Get on topic and stop arguing about your incorrect interpretation of the phrase "wage gap"
It is a God damned miracle that you even learned how to read.
People are not fighting to have a baby sitter payed the same as a brain surgeon
They are complaining that female workers make less for doing the same work as the male worker with the same job.
What is your argument even?
>Uh some anon cuck said they wants to hab the same pay as a brain doktor when they is a baby sitter
Now Get on topic and stop arguing about your incorrect interpretation of the phrase "wage gap"
#139 to #128
-
synthane (12/02/2015) [-] OK, wage gap doesn't exist. Hurray. The only reason that people ever even talk about wage gap is for the reason that he was saying, because actual wage gap doesn't exist. The original research that talked about wage gap was comparing the wages of all of females to the wages of all of males. That is where the "women make 77 cents to the dollar a male makes" or whatever came from. As far as legitimate wage gap is concerned, there is none.
Do you understand now?
Do you understand now?
#156 to #140
-
markipliergame (12/02/2015) [-] do you have any proof or are you gonna keep talking out your ass?
#147 to #142
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] What I am saying is that there is a measurable gap in pay rates
for the!! same jobs!! among women and men, this is a fact.
for the!! same jobs!! among women and men, this is a fact.
#150 to #149
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Pay is not standardized in most companies beyond entry level positions
I feel like I am the only person here with life experance
I feel like I am the only person here with life experance
#152 to #150
-
synthane (12/02/2015) [-] Guess what position basically everyone goes through? That's right: Entry level. Which means that everyone starts out with the same pay. How they advance in their job is going to directly relate to how good they are at brown-nosing their employer, how well they hide their mess ups, and how well they show off their good points.
You're not the only one here with life experience, but you are the only one here with experience at completely failing to observe anything around you in life.
You're not the only one here with life experience, but you are the only one here with experience at completely failing to observe anything around you in life.
#155 to #152
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Do you even realize what you are endorsing?
You want exploitative employers to flourish again?
You want exploitative employers to flourish again?
#135 to #128
-
nebuelaeus (12/02/2015) [-]
Are you gonna comment all then **** then try to say i'm the one changing the subject? Really?
You made a comment saying that a male-female wage gap exists. i made a comment saying it doesn't. then you started this long, dragged-out and circular argument about how you think im using the phrase wage gap wrong, and every comment i have made since then has been trying to end your stupid ******** and revert us back to the topic that we started with, which was the subject of the entire post. But oh no! I'm the one changing the subject. If all you can result to is insults and talking yourself in circles then i am done talking to you about this.
You made a comment saying that a male-female wage gap exists. i made a comment saying it doesn't. then you started this long, dragged-out and circular argument about how you think im using the phrase wage gap wrong, and every comment i have made since then has been trying to end your stupid ******** and revert us back to the topic that we started with, which was the subject of the entire post. But oh no! I'm the one changing the subject. If all you can result to is insults and talking yourself in circles then i am done talking to you about this.
#73 to #71
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Are you sure?
Why do 90% of companies forbid their employees from discussing wages?
Why do 90% of companies forbid their employees from discussing wages?
#105 to #73
-
nebuelaeus (12/02/2015) [-]
there is actually an executive order that protects your ability to discuss your wages with coworkers. it is illegal for a business to prevent you from telling others your pay. im pretty sure there was also a federal law already in effect before the executive order that did the same thing. but i'm not entirely sure
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/executive-order-non-retaliation-disclosure-compensation-information
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/executive-order-non-retaliation-disclosure-compensation-information
#110 to #105
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Allot of states have laws like this- You can be terminated for any reason without warning.
Do you think employers in these states care about some executive order?
When they can fire you for anything?
Do you think employers in these states care about some executive order?
When they can fire you for anything?
#118 to #110
-
paradoxofnight (12/02/2015) [-] How about you provide some sources hm? nebuelaeus did.
#123 to #118
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Have none of you held a job in the last 5 years?
Read any employee manual from a non franchise business
www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/pay-secrecy-and-wage-discrimination/at_download/file
I mean holy **** you people must sit at your moms house and browse 4chan all day
Read any employee manual from a non franchise business
www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/pay-secrecy-and-wage-discrimination/at_download/file
I mean holy **** you people must sit at your moms house and browse 4chan all day
#113 to #110
-
nebuelaeus (12/02/2015) [-]
Federal>State.
Please return to your high school civics class.
Please return to your high school civics class.
#116 to #113
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] You did not answer my question.
Why would employers care about an EO if they could fire an employee without cause for any reason.
Stay on topic!
Focas!
You can do it!
I believe in you
Why would employers care about an EO if they could fire an employee without cause for any reason.
Stay on topic!
Focas!
You can do it!
I believe in you
#130 to #116
-
nebuelaeus (12/02/2015) [-]
Come on man. didn't i just tell you to review how federal law works. It isn't that complicated. Federal is more important that state. It overrules it.
If there is a federal law saying that you can't fire someone for talking about their pay, then it doesn't matter what the state says that is how it works.
Federal>state is an answer to your question. If an employer fires you for talking about your pay they are breaking a federal law, so they can be prosecuted in a federal court. State laws go out the window in federal court because : (say it with me this time) Federal>state. It doesn't matter if the state has "employment at will" laws because the practice is outlawed at a federal level. How many times do i need to repeat this in one comment.
And in response to you other comment with that employee manual link in it. It doesn't matter what the company says in their manual, it is still illegal.
If there is a federal law saying that you can't fire someone for talking about their pay, then it doesn't matter what the state says that is how it works.
Federal>state is an answer to your question. If an employer fires you for talking about your pay they are breaking a federal law, so they can be prosecuted in a federal court. State laws go out the window in federal court because : (say it with me this time) Federal>state. It doesn't matter if the state has "employment at will" laws because the practice is outlawed at a federal level. How many times do i need to repeat this in one comment.
And in response to you other comment with that employee manual link in it. It doesn't matter what the company says in their manual, it is still illegal.
#137 to #130
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Damn man you keep proving time and time again that you have little to no life experience.
If you think Federal employment laws mean anything beyond osha you have clearly never had a job beyond walmart or Mcdonalds.
Federal law dictates that if an employer ask you to be waiting at a pick up point and they are over 15 minutes late, the employees must be clocked in,
Do you actually employers follow that law?
Hahahahahahahah
If you think Federal employment laws mean anything beyond osha you have clearly never had a job beyond walmart or Mcdonalds.
Federal law dictates that if an employer ask you to be waiting at a pick up point and they are over 15 minutes late, the employees must be clocked in,
Do you actually employers follow that law?
Hahahahahahahah
#72 to #44
-
anon (12/02/2015) [-]
And average wage gap exists. This is not shocking since women overwhelmingly take lower paying jobs (such as elementary school teachers, nurses instead of doctors, etc.). When you account for as many variables as possible (experience, education, work output, overtime served [whether or not its a by hour or salaried position], etc.) the wage gap shrinks to less than 2cents which is below the margin of error for such studies; i.e. it can be said with confidence that it does not exist.
#82 to #72
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Wage gap refers to people working the SAME JOBS.
Companies that engage in this behavior typically have a policy about employees are not allowed to discuss wages.
Wage gaps are real and are normal in places with explotive employers
Companies that engage in this behavior typically have a policy about employees are not allowed to discuss wages.
Wage gaps are real and are normal in places with explotive employers
#304 to #82
-
thevaulthunter (12/02/2015) [-] The wage gap only exists when looking at ALL jobs. Looking at people in the same job, there is none. All you keep saying is "It exists! It exists!" You never provide any proof.
#203 to #202
-
bobtombobbob (12/02/2015) [-] Laws change very little until they are enforced
You autist
You autist
#205 to #203
-
shinycharizard (12/02/2015) [-] www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
They've been enforced since 1965, autist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
They've been enforced since 1965, autist.
#12 to #11
-
shibblehiggins (12/01/2015) [-] I personally believe that the banning of abortion is ******* stupid. Because on the off chance that your child will be born with horrible birth defect, you have to deal with it.
If parts of their face are going to be missing, then i'm sorry, i don't think i could deal with that, and neither could the child.
If it's something else like not being able to make full use of their legs when they grow up, then i would make it work out.
If parts of their face are going to be missing, then i'm sorry, i don't think i could deal with that, and neither could the child.
If it's something else like not being able to make full use of their legs when they grow up, then i would make it work out.
#33 to #12
-
theplanetearth (12/01/2015) [-] "Yeah. If we ban abortion then ******* will overpopulate the country." Margret Sanger 1926
#76 to #39
-
anon (12/02/2015) [-]
>"You deserve to take care of that child."
But does that child deserve to be taken care of by [the metaphorical] you? A person who didn't want it, didn't plan for it, probably doesn't have the standing in life to properly provide for it?
It's not just about the parents, it's about the future child's well being as well. If the parents are both broke, cracked out losers who will probably forget about the child all together while getting doped up (as admittedly extreme case, but a realistic case none the less) why should we ask them to raise it? Why not terminate the pregnancy regardless, since the child will likely not have a good life.
And you might say "but some famous/smart/contributing members of society had tough childhoods!" And to that I'd say, how many of those unplanned pregnancies happen and produce a criminal/impoverished person/addict/generally undesirable person for ever one savant?
But does that child deserve to be taken care of by [the metaphorical] you? A person who didn't want it, didn't plan for it, probably doesn't have the standing in life to properly provide for it?
It's not just about the parents, it's about the future child's well being as well. If the parents are both broke, cracked out losers who will probably forget about the child all together while getting doped up (as admittedly extreme case, but a realistic case none the less) why should we ask them to raise it? Why not terminate the pregnancy regardless, since the child will likely not have a good life.
And you might say "but some famous/smart/contributing members of society had tough childhoods!" And to that I'd say, how many of those unplanned pregnancies happen and produce a criminal/impoverished person/addict/generally undesirable person for ever one savant?
#28 to #12
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (12/01/2015) [-] Yeah nah.
9 times out of 10 it's just whores that don't want to face the consequences for being whores.
Unless the mother's life is in danger there is literally no justification for abortion.
>inb4 muh single mother in a bad circumstances
adoption is an option. if you don't have the means to care for a child, give it to someone who can.
9 times out of 10 it's just whores that don't want to face the consequences for being whores.
Unless the mother's life is in danger there is literally no justification for abortion.
>inb4 muh single mother in a bad circumstances
adoption is an option. if you don't have the means to care for a child, give it to someone who can.
#32 to #28
-
theXsjados (12/01/2015) [-]
Like the drastic fall in the rate of crime across the board, not just in our own country, but in many others, isn't justification. Yes it is possible for everyone to achieve greatness, but reality is based on tangible facts and not foolish "hopes". Statistically babies born to single mothers in poor neighborhoods tend to become criminals more often than babies born to wed mothers in lower-middle and higher class neighborhoods.
Ethics dictate that society should choose the lesser of two evils. As long as poor society exists where criminality is prevalent, and society cannot provide opportunity to the new born individuals to guarantee they become productive members of society, the ethical choice is to allow abortion as an option.
The abortion demographic is single unwed mothers in poorer neighborhoods. Thus the portion of the population likely to become criminals are never born, and crime goes down.
As far as adoption goes they fall into the same bracket as the single mothers in poor neighborhoods, except they are even more prone to crime if they are not adopted soon enough. Any exposure to the "system" makes it more likely an individual will be exposed to the system again in the future.
Ethics dictate that society should choose the lesser of two evils. As long as poor society exists where criminality is prevalent, and society cannot provide opportunity to the new born individuals to guarantee they become productive members of society, the ethical choice is to allow abortion as an option.
The abortion demographic is single unwed mothers in poorer neighborhoods. Thus the portion of the population likely to become criminals are never born, and crime goes down.
As far as adoption goes they fall into the same bracket as the single mothers in poor neighborhoods, except they are even more prone to crime if they are not adopted soon enough. Any exposure to the "system" makes it more likely an individual will be exposed to the system again in the future.
#49 to #45
-
lulzdealer ONLINE (12/01/2015) [-] -how is that the child's fault? again if you can't take care of it, give it to someone who can
-you took the risk in the first place, gambling and losing is no excuse to end an innocent life
-your point? not our call to end someone's life before it begins because they may or may not be messed up
-I shouldn't even have to tell you how retarded it is to refer to a human being as a "clump of cells"
-you took the risk in the first place, gambling and losing is no excuse to end an innocent life
-your point? not our call to end someone's life before it begins because they may or may not be messed up
-I shouldn't even have to tell you how retarded it is to refer to a human being as a "clump of cells"
#50 to #49
-
europe (12/01/2015) [-] -A clump of cells =/= a child.
-^
-Why isn't it? It's their body bringing the thing forth, it's their call what they do with their body. The only thing we don't have a say in is what others can't do with their bodies.
-I shouldn't have to tell you how retarded it is to view something that merely has the possibility of developing into a human being as an actual human being
-^
-Why isn't it? It's their body bringing the thing forth, it's their call what they do with their body. The only thing we don't have a say in is what others can't do with their bodies.
-I shouldn't have to tell you how retarded it is to view something that merely has the possibility of developing into a human being as an actual human being
#58 to #2
-
knightmoiden (12/01/2015) [-] I never smiled so brightly holding back a laugh. I'm in the living room
#161 to #58
-
ineedtotakeapiss ONLINE (12/02/2015) [-] Do you get beat if you laugh in your household?
#169 to #161
-
knightmoiden (12/02/2015) [-] no, I just don't want to draw attention to myself when I'm the only one that likes trump in the house. I don't want to start the **** show. I could be right and lose anyway. I'm not sure if I would vote... and to those who thumb me down...K. I get why...
#263 to #2
-
solidusisballadis (12/02/2015) [-] It's not even a ******* feminist, it's Jeb "cuckold" Bush using a volunteer working to try his hardest to be relevant again.
#94
-
Ragumshnagum (12/02/2015) [-] She already makes the same as the male equivalent of whatever she is. The wage gap myth was the result of a disastrous misinterpretation of statistics.
#125 to #94
-
wowxreally (12/02/2015) [-] >implying that the statistics were not misinterpreted on purpose.
#24
-
vladi (12/01/2015) [-] That little overly confident head nod that the end. Such a small detail, but so rage inducing.
#62
-
kaboomz (12/01/2015) [-]
"and do i get to choose what i do with my body"
what?
you wanna be a whore be a whore i dont care
what?
you wanna be a whore be a whore i dont care
#182 to #62
-
citruslord (12/02/2015) [-] It seems to me to mostly be a strawman against those who have legitimate problems with abortion.
#90 to #29
-
feindmachines (12/02/2015) [-] "the son of god did not come to get served, but to serve." - trump 4:20
#48
-
Airmanator (12/01/2015) [-] I'm with Trump on being paid based upon how well you perform your duties, but I take issue with his pro-life stance. I swear, people care more about a person when they're in the womb than out of it.
#99 to #89
-
Airmanator (12/02/2015) [-] Of course murder is illegal, it is by definition an unlawful killing. However are you trying to say abortion is murder? This sounds like a trap.
#122 to #117
-
Airmanator (12/02/2015) [-] There we go.
Beyond that, I'm pro-choice. Everyone can't be special and when there's seven billion of us, we're not all precious. Mistakes, rapes or defects happen so abortions are a nice alternative than a bad upbringing or life in the adoption system.
That's about all I have to say on that, I'm a bit of a Libertarian and I see no problem with choosing what you want to do with your body.
Beyond that, I'm pro-choice. Everyone can't be special and when there's seven billion of us, we're not all precious. Mistakes, rapes or defects happen so abortions are a nice alternative than a bad upbringing or life in the adoption system.
That's about all I have to say on that, I'm a bit of a Libertarian and I see no problem with choosing what you want to do with your body.
#222
-
gotgrilz (12/02/2015) [-] Voting for both trump and hillary is downright idiocracy. I'm a liberal but im not stupid and im not conservative enough to be republican . Its possible that they're using Trump and Hillary to use as an example of getting the youth into politics but i never thought people extremist liberals and extremist consrvatives would be that stupid and be huge in numbers. if I'm right, then most likely the democratic vote would go for Sanders and the republican vote for Carson or someone of the like. You can only hope, right? Either way, I'm American and I'd like to say I hate Americans. God bless 'Merica
