American Politics

[M3J]

No, he was charged with more, but was convicted of manslaughter and official misconduct

You can say "it's not that hard" or that "murder is murder", but I don't think you really appreciate what that actually entails...

Killing someone for unnecessary reasons is to me murder. If a person pulls out a gun against the police, then that's self defense. If officers throw someone in the back of a police van for no reason at the time and kills him, they should be charged. The officers in the Sandra Bland case got off too easily too.

That is a false belief. We are not against more jobs domestically and are for keeping jobs in the fossil fuel market, therefore, we are supporting helping people support their families and keep food on the tables. To suggest we are against supporting people through life is simply poppycock. Just because we are against giving people freebies in life and paying them more for menial jobs that even kids with limited education can achieve doesnt mean we dont support people through their lives or care for them

Women can't control their bodies if they have already forfeited their rights by carrying the life of another body in them, that deserves to be protected.


I dont understand this statement, you could insert any crime where abortion is in your statement and it would be true.

It is not a false belief, you continue to prove that you do not support helping people support their families and keep food on their tables. If you were not against supporting people, you would not be against increasing welfare or raising minimum wages so people can make ends meet, nor would you talk down to people who work in fast food or act as if they're not doing important or hard work. You keep calling it "freebies," which just backs up the point that you are against what's good for the people and lying about it. And funnily, if you look down on fast food workers so much, you shouldn't be eating at fast food restaurants; but the fact that you do indicates that they are important. You have no right to determine or judge what's menial and what's not. Funny how you're okay with banking industry and how they tend to cheat people or lie.

yes they can, it's their bodies, and it's their choices. People like you and I have no right dictating what they can or cannot do with their bodies, especially when you admitted you wouldn't spend money to support these babies. If you want to protect something, protect the babies that are already born.

Yes. However, abortion does not need to be outlawed. And if women die, people like you would be responsible for it. Actually, I'm not sure if "pro-life" people understand what being pro-life is about. The guy who shot up a Planned Parenthood center certainly did not.

 

[xi0]

Having an abortion should be a crime as its murder. Why do people who want to allow abortions suddenly go ghastly eyed at the state paying for Capitol murder, a baby and a criminal are both humans, so people should be for the protection of all life.

That's just untrue as a matter of fact. You deeming it sinful doesn't make it true either.

Just look at the weekly or so news articles where business leaders and businesses in America are being punished, the latest being Wells Fargo.

You either aren't paying attention, or you're fine with companies committing massive amounts of fraud in order to increase profit margins and even condoning their employees doing it with an incentive-based program.

 

[shionoro]

I would think Republicans do want more people to go to higher education why else do we have an education platform, however I dont think we should use our precious tax money to fund lazy people to get free passes to college. People should pay for it as its an investment .

By that logic, everyone lazy will stay workless in a world in which only jobs for people with degrees count.
You will never have a world in which everyone is focussed and has the sufficient luck (because that is what you need. If you start university and notice after a time you cannot do it and the subject is not for you, you are screwed if you don't have money).

And even if you had, there , as i said, simply cannot be enough jobs in that sector.
There are simply not as many engineers needed as there are mc donalds workers needed and there will never be.

What you do by not enabling poor people to go to college (and that is de facto happening if you exclude exceptional talents who get a stipendium) is exactly lowering the possible workforce in jobs like that.

And that costs the taxpayer more on the long run, that should be very clear, too.

 

[SharkBait]

It is not a false belief, you continue to prove that you do not support helping people support their families and keep food on their tables. If you were not against supporting people, you would not be against increasing welfare or raising minimum wages so people can make ends meet, nor would you talk down to people who work in fast food or act as if they're not doing important or hard work

Theres no point to raising minimum wage or increasing handout programs. If people applied and got high brain powered jobs then there would be no need to raise the minimum wage. I dont understand why you all want to remain and thrice in these atrocious low paying jobs. The climate of America and the pursuit of the American dream are simply not things that are enabled with a minimum wage job. When was the last time someone was able to buy and own their house by working in a minimum wage job, or beyond that, when were these people able to even live in a nice neighborhood, own a car, send their kids to a state university, save for retirement, go on vacations to Disneyworld on these jobs. Its simply not possible which is why there is no need for raisining minimum wages. If these people got better jobs they would need to worry about the minimum wage or needing "welfare."

And funnily, if you look down on fast food workers so much, you shouldn't be eating at fast food restaurants; but the fact that you do indicates that they are important.

Its our duty as Americans to support our local economies so its our duty to eat at these establishments.

People like you and I have no right dictating what they can or cannot do with their bodies, especially when you admitted you wouldn't spend money to support these babies.

I wouldnt spend money but Im not against their being resources out there for them, however, they need to be supported by for profit business or other sources of private funding. Government ought not support it using taxpayers money.

You have no right to determine or judge what's menial and what's not. Funny how you're okay with banking industry and how they tend to cheat people or lie.

Banks make mistakes just like the common man. They are allowed to make mistakes just like we are.

You either aren't paying attention, or you're fine with companies committing massive amounts of fraud in order to increase profit margins and even condoning their employees doing it with an incentive-based program.

I think these are usually actually impressive to me. We should feel a bit impressed when companies are able to find ingenious ways to maximize their bottom line. Its unfortunate they got caught but it helps to further refine the banking industry with the implementation of better business practices. And ultimately they do compensate people.

 

[xi0]

Killing someone for unnecessary reasons is to me murder. If a person pulls out a gun against the police, then that's self defense. If officers throw someone in the back of a police van for no reason at the time and kills him, they should be charged. The officers in the Sandra Bland case got off too easily too.

I mean, that is almost certainly a prerequisite most of the time, but that's not the actual definition of "murder"

Are you referring to the Freddie Gray case? Because every officer involved was charged. I mean, even the prosecutor who brought charges against them had a complaint filed against her for prosecutorial misconduct. Even people who agreed with charges being brought against the officers involved criticized Mosby for overreaching with them in order to appease protesters instead of picking charges that would stick.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 12, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 12, 2016 ---

I wouldnt spend money but Im not against their being resources out there for them, however, they need to be supported by for profit business or other sources of private funding. Government ought not support it using taxpayers money.

Oh, so the well-being of the average poor person should be left up to the charity of private industry then? So you don't consider yourself your brother's keeper?

I think these are usually actually impressive to me. We should feel a bit impressed when companies are able to find ingenious ways to maximize their bottom line. Its unfortunate they got caught but it helps to further refine the banking industry with the implementation of better business practices. And ultimately they do compensate people.

Impressive? Ingenious in a criminal way? Sure. But you aren't so delusional that you think knowingly creating accounts and charging customers for things they didn't ask for as a means to cook their books is something that should be done, let alone encouraged by management?

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Just look at the weekly or so news articles where business leaders and businesses in America are being punished, the latest being Wells Fargo.

So Fraud is an ethical and legal practice now? It's no wonder why we had a fucking disaster of a recession in 2008...

I would think Republicans do want more people to go to higher education why else do we have an education platform, however I dont think we should use our precious tax money to fund lazy people to get free passes to college. People should pay for it as its an investment .

But it's perfectly fine to waste Tax money to fund pointless things like "Salute the Troops" in Baseball games or paying countries like Israel an enormous chunk of our money?
There's no such thing as "free passes" to college, because paying to go to college doesn't mean shit if you can't put in any effort (on top of requirements made by colleges).
Yes, people must pay for it so that they should be in debt for the rest of their lives. That's the problem here: investing is a great choice, but it's a double-edge sword in the long run because you'd still have to pay it off. It's one thing if student debt would be around $2,000 or $5,000 at its max (at least that's something that can be paid-off), but for student debt to reach over $30,000+ makes investment not worth it.

 

[SharkBait]

Oh, so the well-being of the average poor person should be left up to the charity of private industry then? So you don't consider yourself your brother's keeper?

Yes companies are pretty good with doing service type opportunities (see Walgreens Get a Shot Give a Shot, and other endeavors by companies). The private industry does a mighty good job helping the disadvantaged. And typically people working in high brain powered jobs are additionally able use their time to partake in service opportunities. For profit companies do their jobs to give back.

Mandating that people give just rubs me the wrong way, true charity is only achieved by people giving out of the love of their heart. Forcing that out taxes goes to support charities we may not agree with just seems wrong and vile. What if they sent government money to an anti american group focused on post abortion care, that would be wrong.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 12, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 12, 2016 ---

Yes, people must pay for it so that they should be in debt for the rest of their lives. That's the problem here: investing is a great choice, but it's a double-edge sword in the long run because you'd still have to pay it off. It's one thing if student debt would be around $2,000 or $5,000 at its max (at least that's something that can be paid-off), but for student debt to reach over $30,000+ makes investment not worth it.

People can go to state schools and not owe that much. Additionally their parents can have savings funds for them they started early in life to cause the amount owed to be less. Why should the system be blamed when parents had ample opportunity to save up money? If people had better jobs and better planning then their would be no need to pursue endeavors to alter the cost of education in America. And cost is really no object when you come out of school making upwards of $80K a year. If youre going to college and getting something in some pointless major like many arts and humanities then its kind of your fault if you are unable to pay debt off in a fast time frame. A real major in a necessary field in STEM reaps many benefits or at least something like being a lawyer, etc.

 

[shionoro]

People can go to state schools and now owe that much. Additionally their parents can have savings funds for them they started early in life to cause the amount owed to be less. Why should the system be blamed when parents had ample opportunity to save up money?

Because not everyone has the opportunity to save.
There is a good percentage of americans who cannot even afford to feed their children in a healthy way.
You can hardly ignore that social reality.
If you wan tpeople to go to university you have to support these families, and reps are against that.
They want that lwo class workers cannot live from just one job.
They want thatlow income families cannot afford healthcare.
They want that low income families cannot send their children to college.

That is just the consequence of the things you want.

 

[SharkBait]

Because not everyone has the opportunity to save.
There is a good percentage of americans who cannot even afford to feed their children in a healthy way.
You can hardly ignore that social reality.
If you wan tpeople to go to university you have to support these families, and reps are against that.
They want that lwo class workers cannot live from just one job.
They want thatlow income families cannot afford healthcare.
They want that low income families cannot send their children to college.

That is just the consequence of the things you want.

People reaped what they sowed, they didnt take advantage of going to college so they have to have these low paying jobs and thus they were unable to have savings accounts. Its their fault, not my fault, not a political parties fault, not the systems fault, but their own fault. Thus, its the persons fault for not saving and they have to accept that its their fault they are struggling to live, struggling to afford healthcare, and struggling to send their kids to college.

 

[shionoro]

People reaped what they sowed, they didnt take advantage of going to college so they have to have these low paying jobs and thus they were unable to have savings accounts. Its their fault, not my fault, not a political parties fault, not the systems fault, but their own fault. Thus, its the persons fault for not saving and they have to accept that its their fault they are struggling to live, struggling to afford healthcare, and struggling to send their kids to college.

Who did not take advantage of going to college? Some people cannot even afford that.
And you can hardly blame someone for not being very bright.
Half of all americans are of below average intelligence. And even smart and willing people can be affected by unemployment.

Also: Why should that fall back onto their children? the state should be interested in enabling the children to break through that barrier, not be unable to have better chance than their parents.

 

[xi0]

Yes companies are pretty good with doing service type opportunities (see Walgreens Get a Shot Give a Shot, and other endeavors by companies). The private industry does a mighty good job helping the disadvantaged. And typically people working in high brain powered jobs are additionally able use their time to partake in service opportunities. For profit companies do their jobs to give back.

Mandating that people give just rubs me the wrong way, true charity is only achieved by people giving out of the love of their heart. Forcing that out taxes goes to support charities we may not agree with just seems wrong and vile. What if they sent government money to an anti american group focused on post abortion care, that would be wrong.

Why does industry being charitable remove the necessity for the government to have welfare programs as well?

People pay taxes and taxes are used for government programs. That's not mandated giving... I mean, you republicans keep wanting lower and lower taxes, but also want to decide what every penny of their taxes goes to. That's not the point of paying taxes... The government isn't a charitable organization.

Anti american post abortion care.......what does that even mean?

 

[SharkBait]

Who did not take advantage of going to college? Some people cannot even afford that.
And you can hardly blame someone for not being very bright.
Half of all americans are of below average intelligence. And even smart and willing people can be affected by unemployment.

Also: Why should that fall back onto their children? the state should be interested in enabling the children to break through that barrier, not be unable to have better chance than their parents.

When do you ever see unemployed engineers, pharmaceutical workers, wall street traders, or business leaders? I cant remember seeing any.

The state benefits by rewarding the people who go to college with tax breaks and further incentives and reward programs. Why else does the government give some money to schools for merit based scholarships? It rewards the successful and we need more of that.

 

[M3J]

Theres no point to raising minimum wage or increasing handout programs. If people applied and got high brain powered jobs then there would be no need to raise the minimum wage. I dont understand why you all want to remain and thrice in these atrocious low paying jobs. The climate of America and the pursuit of the American dream are simply not things that are enabled with a minimum wage job. When was the last time someone was able to buy and own their house by working in a minimum wage job, or beyond that, when were these people able to even live in a nice neighborhood, own a car, send their kids to a state university, save for retirement, go on vacations to Disneyworld on these jobs. Its simply not possible which is why there is no need for raisining minimum wages. If these people got better jobs they would need to worry about the minimum wage or needing "welfare."

Its our duty as Americans to support our local economies so its our duty to eat at these establishments.


I wouldnt spend money but Im not against their being resources out there for them, however, they need to be supported by for profit business or other sources of private funding. Government ought not support it using taxpayers money.

Banks make mistakes just like the common man. They are allowed to make mistakes just like we are.

I think these are usually actually impressive to me. We should feel a bit impressed when companies are able to find ingenious ways to maximize their bottom line. Its unfortunate they got caught but it helps to further refine the banking industry with the implementation of better business practices. And ultimately they do compensate people.

To be frank, the more you post, the more I believe you, like many other conservatives, are bad human beings who pretend to care for others when in reality, you only care about yourself. I've said this before so I won't repeat myself, but politicians and people that think a lot like you are why this country is in trouble and why we're doing badly. And as much as I love @Drmke like a nephew, people like him don't help matters either with all the political correctness.

There is nothing ingenious about cheating people and committing fraud, especially when it affects millions of people and hurts the economy. You cannot chastise fast food workers for making mistakes that anyone can make, but praise bankers and companies for hurting tons of people. Anyone who does that is deplorable. Your double standards are disgusting.

I mean, that is almost certainly a prerequisite most of the time, but that's not the actual definition of "murder"

Are you referring to the Freddie Gray case? Because every officer involved was charged. I mean, even the prosecutor who brought charges against them had a complaint filed against her for prosecutorial misconduct. Even people who agreed with charges being brought against the officers involved criticized Mosby for overreaching with them in order to appease protesters instead of picking charges that would stick.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 12, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 12, 2016 ---

Oh, so the well-being of the average poor person should be left up to the charity of private industry then? So you don't consider yourself your brother's keeper?


Impressive? Ingenious in a criminal way? Sure. But you aren't so delusional that you think knowingly creating accounts and charging customers for things they didn't ask for as a means to cook their books is something that should be done, let alone encouraged by management?

YEah, but they were acquitted of the charges, no? It's pretty fucked up that they could throw someone in the van bound and unrestrained to a seat, drive like maniacs knowing it'll hurt the person, and walk away from all that.

 

[shionoro]

When do you ever see unemployed engineers, pharmaceutical workers, wall street traders, or business leaders? I cant remember seeing any.

The state benefits by rewarding the people who go to college with tax breaks and further incentives and reward programs. Why else does the government give some money to schools for merit based scholarships? It rewards the successful and we need more of that.

Quite often, actually. Do you study? The now husband of a good female friend of mine was unemployed for 2 years even tho he had two master's degrees, one in electronic engineering and the other in economics.
And he had to move pretty far.
The thing is that just because people 'search' , that does not mean they will take you.
You might not end up unemployed, but you often have to sell yourself under the value of what you have learned. Because it is not so much that there are too few engineers, it is more like there are too few engineers who just take a bad job over no job at all.

The state benefits by rewarding the people who go to college with tax breaks and further incentives and reward programs. Why else does the government give some money to schools for merit based scholarships? It rewards the successful and we need more of that.

It does NOT reward success. It usually rewards having a good upbringing in the first place. If all americans have the possibility of taking tutoring lessongs for their child, we talk.
But as long as a rich person can buy good grades by employing tutors and having a good and stable working environment while a single mother has to work her ass off in two jobs and does not have enough money for an acceptable upbringing of her child, all the 'reward success' talk is complete bullshit.

 

[M3J]

There are plenty of people with a college degree, from Associate's to Master's, that are in a low-paying job. It's obvious Sharkbait and many conservatives (at least the ones born into well-off families) have not experienced real life or seen the reality, they continue to live in their bubble.

 

[SharkBait]

You might not end up unemployed, but you often have to sell yourself under the value of what you have learned. Because it is not so much that there are too few engineers, it is more like there are too few engineers who just take a bad job over no job at all.

A bad engineering job is still more important and rewarding than a job putting someones fries in their bag. One job is fulfilling while the other is an honest waste of time.

t does NOT reward success. It usually rewards having a good upbringing in the first place. If all americans have the possibility of taking tutoring lessongs for their child, we talk.
But as long as a rich person can buy good grades by employing tutors and having a good and stable working environment while a single mother has to work her ass off in two jobs and does not have enough money for an acceptable upbringing of her child, all the 'reward success' talk is complete bullshit.

Everyone has access to a good upbringing. Again they just had to get a good job. And also just because someone is a single parent doesnt mean they have to be poor and struggling. There are well off employed single parents in all sectors.

Divorce and with kids is kind of another one of those bad life decisions, why get married if youre not compatible? The same question exists for having kids, why have kids if you have a bad job or unstable job, or no life savings or money?

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

People can go to state schools and not owe that much. Additionally their parents can have savings funds for them they started early in life to cause the amount owed to be less. Why should the system be blamed when parents had ample opportunity to save up money? If people had better jobs and better planning then their would be no need to pursue endeavors to alter the cost of education in America. And cost is really no object when you come out of school making upwards of $80K a year. If youre going to college and getting something in some pointless major like many arts and humanities then its kind of your fault if you are unable to pay debt off in a fast time frame. A real major in a necessary field in STEM reaps many benefits or at least something like being a lawyer, etc.

Here is the problem about parents saving up money to help fund their children getting an education: It doesn't always work out. You're making it sound like it's so easy to just simply save up money, when in reality, it's not. Even if you never had problems saving up enough money, there's just no way to tell how the future is going to look (be it needing the money for emergency purposes, increase in inflation, ect...).

Yes, making $80k/yr is definitely going to help pay off a debt of over $30,000 when you believe you're purely making $6-$7 thousand a month without paying for food, gas, insurance, housing, and all of the other miscellaneous (let's also not forget Interest Rates are applied here, so you'd still have to pay extra money to completely pay off your debt).

A degree is still a degree; it's never going to be a pointless or useless, because it still contains value. But it's understandable if it's more referring to "less demand/surplus of said-career" since you're less likely to get hired.
But the problem here is that you're saying "Get a good job that pays well so you can pay off your debt" when you're making it sound like people are like machines. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have people who would absolutely hate their jobs even if it pays more than what the President is earning.

Nevertheless, the issue that I see lies with the cost of going in and getting an education, not the people who can't afford it. If that isn't the case, then should we blame people who went homeless or got their jobs ruined because "it's their faults" instead of the sons of bitches who fucked the economy and caused the recession 2008?

 

[xi0]

Everyone has access to a good upbringing. Again they just had to get a good job.

So people apparently have control over whether they had a good upbringing or not? What are you even talking about?

 

[SharkBait]

Yes, making $80k/yr is definitely going to help pay off a debt of over $30,000 when you believe you're purely making $6-$7 thousand a month without paying for food, gas, insurance, housing, and all of the other miscellaneous (let's also not forget Interest Rates are applied here, so you'd still have to pay extra money to completely pay off your debt).

If you have that huge debt why would you go out and purchase a house. 6 - 7K a month is plenty when you just have a resonable car and are renting an apartment even one as lavish as $3K rent a month. Employee sponsored health insurance is pretty cheap, gas is cheap, food is cheap, so yes, at 80K a year and living in reasonable accommodations people arent going to be stumbling around hungry making that amount of money even with a 30K+ education loan.

Here is the problem about parents saving up money to help fund their children getting an education: It doesn't always work out. You're making it sound like it's so easy to just simply save up money, when in reality, it's not.

It is very easy, people just make poor life decisions. Saving for a kids college fund versus buying that mortgage to your 5 mln dollar house and having three new cars, the smart decision should be clear.

If that isn't the case, then should we blame people who went homeless or got their jobs ruined because "it's their faults" instead of the sons of bitches who fucked the economy and caused the recession 2008?

Again the suckers who lost things in that recession made a poor life decision by living beyond their means. You shouldnt need to have financial agents be the ones to tell you if youre capable or not capable of being a home owner.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 12, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 12, 2016 ---

So people apparently have control over whether they had a good upbringing or not? What are you even talking about?

You do, if you get a good job in a good location then you can ensure your kids have a good upbringing.

 

[shionoro]

A bad engineering job is still more important and rewarding than a job putting someones fries in their bag. One job is fulfilling while the other is an honest waste of time.

No it is not. You are getting abused after putting work into your degree.
And int he US it is worse: You are getting abused and not paid enough while having a lot of debt due to having to pay much interest.
Basically, you'd have been better off by just working fries and trying to get above the gruntwork position.
Then you'd at least be debt free.

And as i have already explained you: No, not everyone can have a job like engineer.
It is simply not possible. it is not possible for several reasons.
There is not enough demand in engineers (or other high intellect jobs) and there will never be.
Also, a good chunk of americans has no way to pay for university.
A good chunk of americans also does not have the intellect for it. Should they starve because their jobs get paid poorly?

Everyone has access to a good upbringing. Again they just had to get a good job. And also just because someone is a single parent doesnt mean they have to be poor and struggling. There are well off employed single parents in all sectors.

Divorce and with kids is kind of another one of those bad life decisions, why get married if youre not compatible? The same question exists for having kids, why have kids if you have a bad job or unstable job, or no life savings or money?

That is really a delusional thing to say.
A child of a single mother with two jobs and a shitty flat has a good upbringing? really?
The child has to get a good job?
The child is responsible for what you call bad decisions of the parent (which is honestly bullshit, but oh well).?

At the moment you are in the cycle and your parents are poor, you are fucked in the US. And you have no way to get out except if you are exceptionally talented and also lucky.