Re: Official Election Day Thread!
I think you mean Gary Johnson 2016, now. He did say he was running again.
~ ☭ Fokker
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Official Election Day Thread!
I think you mean Gary Johnson 2016, now. He did say he was running again.
More important than the presidential election however: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-marijuana-legalization-idUKBRE8A602D20121107
I voted Gary Johnson. Twice!
> [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:
> More important than the presidential election however: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-marijuana-legalization-idUKBRE8A602D20121107
Time to break out the cheetos flavored gold fish.
I actually voted for Gary Johnson... before I voted against him!
Congratulations for picking Obama over Romney!
We, Europeans, are going to reward you with 4 years of reduced mockery for it!
You Lie
Anyone up for a road trip to CO or WA? ![]()
oh well. the world ends in december anyways
I voted Gary Johnson. Twice!Me too! But I only did it once.
Only once? What are you, a living legal citizen?
I asked for 2 "I voted" stickers and gave one to a friend who didn't vote.
Papi spank me!
Amerika has more takers than givers. Watch as its standard of living falls and rejoice: Communist revolutionaries incentivized the unproductive to reproduce more than the productive and indoctrinated youth to the point that they are now the majority. Freedom and the unparalleled standard of living it affords has been defeated by ignorance, greed, and laziness.
Combined with our tyrannical 2-party system in which both parties support the federal reserve robbing us, foreign aggression, huge debt, expanding government, huge corporate bailouts and cronyism, and eroding civil rights, all demographic and cultural indications are that America is going to continue to move toward socialist government, lower earnings, less rights, higher taxes, and lower standards of living. The fastest growing demographics are demographics with disproportionately high unemployment rates, disproportionately low educational achievement, and disproportionately high poverty rates: ie, their cultures often do not encourage achievement, but dependency on entitlements.
I'm obviously not referring to "their cultures" as if any racial group shares a singular culture, but certain groups demonstrate significantly different representations of certain values. I'm simply referencing that some racial/ethnic groups MASSIVELY outperform others despite having shared similar impoverished/discriminatory histories. Certain cultures/subcultures have much higher rates of producing educated, productive people; and others, likewise, have much higher rates of producing a lot of babies (with high dropout/jobless/poverty rates themselves later) while watching their welfare checks grow in size.
Talk of content matters less and less. President Obama could have killed those 4 Americans with his bare hands on national TV and maybe still won. There are that many people in Amerika who will vote for literally whoever offers them the most handouts, regardless of anything else. A glance at a map of the voting trends of various districts of states with close votes shows that most of these states are dominated by Romney supporters, but the urban centers and ghettos, with their disproportionately large populations, vote Obama. And Obama carries states like PA and OH solely by the votes of these urban centers. (nearly every other district votes Romney in these states)
What do you know, where there's section 8 housing for millions and disproportionate amounts of cultures which produce high high-school drop-out rates, crime, and drug abuse, there's the largest portion of Obama's supporters! What do you know, they have a higher average number of children too! Kinda weird, since they can't even afford to take care of themselves, yet they're not only having babies, but more than working people not taking government income.
How irresponsible of their culture(s) for this to be the trend. Having more children when they're jobless means less to go around for their other children. Having more children when they're jobless makes it harder for them to find and maintain new work. It's selfish, irresponsible, and, in the language of my people, trashy.
It's not fair to the children because of resource scarcity. It's not fair to the children because it raises them with role-models who demonstrate no work ethic, distorting their view of the world, success, and personal responsibility. It's not fair to society because we want to help those who need, not subsidize lazy people who would rather have more children and collect bigger checks than work.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/530987_695393010748_696495065_n.jpg
Clearly, reproduction should not be a right, but a privilege, eh Kemp?
If you disagree with anything I said, please inform me of what. I'm dying for actual conversation. My statements were clear, as were my points. I never suggested reproduction be regulated. I only suggested that our current policy of encouraging the least productive in society to have the most children is harmful to all of our society, including those children themselves.
We currently financially incentivize the laziest among us to reproduce more, and birth rates among those who rely on the government for income confirm that it is affecting behavior--They're slightly higher than those not relying on government to provide for them, despite their inability to provide for their children. That these children are statistically more likely not to graduate from high school, become criminals, and also live life jobless, dependent on government suggests that it's the financial incentives of our welfare system, not love of their children, which causes these parents to exceed the birth rates of working parents not relying on government--whose children statistically achieve significantly greater educational/economic success.
I'm merely stating observations and posting them for discussion; and, based on these observations, I'm suggesting that we probably shouldn't be incentivizing the dumb and the lazy to have the most kids. I'm all for helping out those in need, but when a mother on welfare has 4 more children while already on welfare, maybe we should start to reduce the amount she receives per child in order to weed out the A-holes who are just having kids for the money. Those people are horrible parents and their children are statistically far more likely to grow up uneducated and become jobless (thus poor), drug-addicted, and involved in crime. Their rates of teenage pregnancy increase, as well. BAM third generation on welfare in a hurry!
I'm browsing research as I write this and it's just depressing.
(This open ATM, for instance, on page 11: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5479)
The statistical discrepancies in the educational/economic/civic success of these people's children suggests that it's love of money, not their kids, which leads [many of] them to have so many. I'm not proposing policing them having kids. I'm just proposing we not encourage unfit parents to have more children that they tend, statistically, not to really want.
It's bad for the kids. It's bad for our economy. It's bad for our tax rates and tax revenues. It's bad for the economic freedom of all. And it's bad for our democratic process. If you disagree, let's talk about it. Pretending I proposed regulating reproduction is not productive.
Democrats still control the senate (picked up a couple seats, but not enough to avoid filibusters), Republicans still control the House. Some the races are still contested (still counting), so the final numbers aren't in yet.
Kemp, I agree with you actually. It's because I agree with you that I was hoping you'd offer some insightful solution. But quite frankly, I'm not sure a solution is possible. With the current landscape of things, anyone who even tries to address this issue is going to be labeled a Nazi/eugenicist/blah blah blah. That is why I said what I said, half jokingly ![]()
I don't think there's much of a solution to trashy culture.
You can't force parents not to raise their children thinking the a-holes on reality tv aren't role models. You can't force people not to be irresponsible and have kids they don't care about.
But I do believe very strongly what I said above: We should NOT be financially incentivising this behavior or rewarding it. We do now, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it has a very negative effect on behavior. The illegitimacy rate among blacks in Amerika has _skyrocketed_ since the creation and expansion of welfare, and it hasn't gone down for anybody else either.
We're getting what we encourage. We should stop encouraging it. That's one very significant thing we can and should do.
perhaps next time the Republicans run with a better candidate (e. g. an female Latino) and a modern style of politics (abortions are okay, immigration is great). so the GOP should get rid of the tea-bags asap. in two years the new program must be firm for the mid-terms.
You do realize the difference in popular between them is only ~2%? Sure that difference might get a bit bigger as 'minority' population grow, but this country is still fiercely conservative.
Trump calling for a revolution against the president on twitter, isn't that treachery or something?
Whining about how Obama lost the popular vote...
First of all, he didn't.
Second of all, didn't hear him complain when this happened to Bush.
Trump is more of an idiot than i gave him credit for.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Official Election Day Thread!
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.