-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Translation: Once gay people could get married, we couldn't use that on the campaign trail anymore. So we have to find a new way to court the gay vote.....nothing better than outright buying them.
Wealth gap, free college, basic income, reparations and now gay reparations.....their entire campaign strategy is nothing more than literally and blatantly trying to buy votes. The Dems agenda is so bad and the economy is going so well under Trump that this is all they have to run on.
And they're doing it with our tax dollars at a time when we are (what is it now?) $22 Trillion in debt? How can any person justify voting for this party today. It's madness.
Wealth gap, free college, basic income, reparations and now gay reparations.....their entire campaign strategy is nothing more than literally and blatantly trying to buy votes. The Dems agenda is so bad and the economy is going so well under Trump that this is all they have to run on.
And they're doing it with our tax dollars at a time when we are (what is it now?) $22 Trillion in debt? How can any person justify voting for this party today. It's madness.
Last edited:
-
5
- Show all
With gays making up only 2% of the population, what's the point in in courting the gay vote, especially at the national level? So gays, no doubt, have depended upon massive support from straights at every level where they have succeeded.
Speaking of basic income, would conservatives support abolishing all government welfare in return for the government guaranteeing giving a basic income to everyone who is qualified? It just might end poverty. If you refuse to agree to it, then how else can you make a deal to abolish all government welfare?
If both Democrats and Republicans are going to run bad candidates again in 2020, then I'm sure not going to vote for either one of them once again. A vote for the Libertarian candidate won't be a wasted vote, since the Libertarian party needs to get enough votes to continue being recognized as a political party in Oklahoma.
Speaking of basic income, would conservatives support abolishing all government welfare in return for the government guaranteeing giving a basic income to everyone who is qualified? It just might end poverty. If you refuse to agree to it, then how else can you make a deal to abolish all government welfare?
If both Democrats and Republicans are going to run bad candidates again in 2020, then I'm sure not going to vote for either one of them once again. A vote for the Libertarian candidate won't be a wasted vote, since the Libertarian party needs to get enough votes to continue being recognized as a political party in Oklahoma.
Last edited:
It's still indirectly buying votes as it's designed to get the woke crowd, gay or not, to vote for them. But it's also pandering to their big money donors and to Hollywood.
No.
No, it won't.
First of all, I don't want to abolish all government welfare, I want to get rid of the waste, fraud and dependency in the system (of course you already know that, it's disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise). Secondly, trading the current welfare system for basic income is not abolishing government welfare, it's simply changing it's name.
I voted Libertarian in 2016 and had planned to do so again. But the attempts by the left to undermine the electoral college is kind of forcing me to vote for Trump instead. If the popular vote is much closer this time, maybe they'll stop pushing this nonsense. I agree that the Libertarian party needs to get more votes so they can be recognized as a legitimate party, but protecting the EC takes precedence over that because without it, 3rd parties will no longer matter anyway.
No.
No, it won't.
First of all, I don't want to abolish all government welfare, I want to get rid of the waste, fraud and dependency in the system (of course you already know that, it's disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise). Secondly, trading the current welfare system for basic income is not abolishing government welfare, it's simply changing it's name.
I voted Libertarian in 2016 and had planned to do so again. But the attempts by the left to undermine the electoral college is kind of forcing me to vote for Trump instead. If the popular vote is much closer this time, maybe they'll stop pushing this nonsense. I agree that the Libertarian party needs to get more votes so they can be recognized as a legitimate party, but protecting the EC takes precedence over that because without it, 3rd parties will no longer matter anyway.
Last edited:
-
3
- Show all
1. Yes, many conservatives support/have supported a UBI.
2. If you are going to make an authoritative statement, show the evidence. Not, "here is what I think will happen" but actual evidence that it would not improve poverty.
3. EVERYONE wants to get rid of fraud waste abuse etc. If you create means-tested programs, there will forever be someone trying to get it fraudulently. And same with dependency. If you create a program that forces someone to live below a certain means to get it, you incentivize people to live that way. That is dependency. A UBI is given to every citizen. The only way to get it fraudulently is to fraudulently claim citizenship. That is far easier to monitor than preventing someone from claiming they make $9872 a year while they work under the table for $40K more. And, this IS the solution to dependency. If everyone gets it, it is the baseline so it is not dependency. Nobody says we are "dependent" on free police or free fire department or free defense. It is the baseline in this country but not others. So, if you want to make more than the UBI, you can. If you want to hire more security, you can. You don't lose the UBI just like you don't lose the police. No dependency.
Saying UBI from means-tested welfare is simply a name change shows ignorance of how these things function. That is like saying that universal health care is just a name change from Medicaid. It is a factually incorrect statement.
This is a far more libertarian idea than the system that you are defending. The true libertarian way would be no government welfare at all. But, you, and many, find that unpalatable. But, a UBI would be the least government invasive and controlling way to ensure basic welfare. After many decades of creating fraud, waste, abuse and dependency with this system, it is hilarious to hear, "I just want the welfare system without fraud waste, abuse and dependency." That is like saying, "I don't want these football rule changes. I want football to be played exactly like we have always played it, just without the concussions happening." It just doesn't work that way.
2. If you are going to make an authoritative statement, show the evidence. Not, "here is what I think will happen" but actual evidence that it would not improve poverty.
3. EVERYONE wants to get rid of fraud waste abuse etc. If you create means-tested programs, there will forever be someone trying to get it fraudulently. And same with dependency. If you create a program that forces someone to live below a certain means to get it, you incentivize people to live that way. That is dependency. A UBI is given to every citizen. The only way to get it fraudulently is to fraudulently claim citizenship. That is far easier to monitor than preventing someone from claiming they make $9872 a year while they work under the table for $40K more. And, this IS the solution to dependency. If everyone gets it, it is the baseline so it is not dependency. Nobody says we are "dependent" on free police or free fire department or free defense. It is the baseline in this country but not others. So, if you want to make more than the UBI, you can. If you want to hire more security, you can. You don't lose the UBI just like you don't lose the police. No dependency.
Saying UBI from means-tested welfare is simply a name change shows ignorance of how these things function. That is like saying that universal health care is just a name change from Medicaid. It is a factually incorrect statement.
This is a far more libertarian idea than the system that you are defending. The true libertarian way would be no government welfare at all. But, you, and many, find that unpalatable. But, a UBI would be the least government invasive and controlling way to ensure basic welfare. After many decades of creating fraud, waste, abuse and dependency with this system, it is hilarious to hear, "I just want the welfare system without fraud waste, abuse and dependency." That is like saying, "I don't want these football rule changes. I want football to be played exactly like we have always played it, just without the concussions happening." It just doesn't work that way.
Last edited: