Mock Presidential Race!

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • This is not just a decision about the life or death of this country, this is the decision of whether or not you want to do what it takes to make America great again! I can and will fight for the American people and this beloved country! We are going to win for once!

    • GreatbigHippo wrote:

      oceanhawk wrote:

      GreatbigHippo wrote:

      And when the wall fails, you will all regret your decision. McSquiggles doesn't have any campaign except for building a wall.
      I can think of some politicians that have done the same, and well... seem to be doing very well now
      Yes a wall will fail, but squiggles promotes freedom, which equals fairness
      Yes, freedom = fairness in certain situations. Economics is not one of them. If you read my original campaign statement you can see that I promote certain freedoms more than any other candidate. Squiggles supports the creation of a national firewall, which undermines freedom more than anything else I have advocated.

      freedom = fairness in ALL situations. Economics is a relatively unimportant issue when compared to moral and some social issues, but it still does matter. And when people are free to work or to learn to do the work in the field of their choice without fear of an oppressive government or oppressive taxation and oppressive redistribution of the fruits of their labor, then they can enrich themselves to the greatest extent of what their skills and talents are worth in the eyes of the community at large.

      If anyone produces goods or services that are highly desired by the community, that person will become much richer than others. That is simple business logic. If somebody else produces goods or services that are only marginally desired by the community, that person will remain relatively poorer than others. But rather than trying to forcefully steal the fruits of the other person's labor, in a well-managed and free society, the second person can choose to change their lot in life by retraining in other fields or working harder than they have been in their current field.

      By their own effort, then, the second person can achieve a better way of life without leaching from the higher value of others. Just because they choose to work in a lesser position, or choose to be lazy, or are not capable of working in a greater position does not entitle them to take what they did not earn. And since the most basic principle of trade is that a man pays for goods (or services) only as much as they are worth, he should not be forced to overpay for services that aren't worth as much. For this reason, minimum wage laws are repulsive to a well-functioning and free economy.

      Like redistribution, a minimum wage unjustly mandates unearned wages that belong to other, more valuable and capable, workers. But let not the concept of inequality in capability be a reason for redistribution of wealth. For inasmuch as one person works for what they are truthfully worth, if he is underpaid, a free society will affect change for his betterment of treatment. But when that same free society willfully votes to establish or increase minimum wage laws, they do so in such a way as to reduce their own prosperity.

      However, whereas the concept of inequality of capability is not a reason for redistribution of wealth, equality of opportunity for prosperity is a reason for the establishment of laws to protect and care for those whose capabilities are not reasonably able to earn or care for themselves. As long as a society does not give up its freedom of choice in occupation, then the equality of opportunity will always ensure that no one is truly prevented from enriching themselves by their own labor rather than stealing what is not theirs from others who are more capable.

      And while there are those few who occasionally and temporarily become too incapable to earn enough, for them, a free society also maintains a safety net (not that dependency teat of welfare, but a safety harness of rescue-fare) to prevent sudden and catastrophic loss of livelihood.

      Ultimately, there are always a very few who are truly incapable due to serious and permanent illness or extreme disability. For these, a free society also maintains a special care fund and or facilities that mercifully and dutifully maintains their livelihood and dignity. This is not the same as the teat of welfare, this is compassion for the indigent or the mentally infirm or the severely handicapped.

      Thus a free society that has equal opportunity for all to work and achieve -- and not to force an equality of wealth through the malpractice of redistribution -- has the capability of growing and sustaining itself indefinitely (barring tragedy and natural disaster...though a free society that is well managed will usually plan ahead against difficult times).

      Finally, there is one more form of wealth redistribution that sickens the soul of a well-functioning free economy. And that is the overreach (or underreach) of a poorly executed policy of equal opportunity. Whereas the function of equal opportunity is to ensure the freedom of all to learn and work in the field of their choice as they are able, a poorly run policy of equal opportunity will redistribute opportunities away from the truly deserving (due to innate talent) in favor of others who are not chosen by their talents but by their inherited and non-chosen status (meaning because of creed, color, or other status that is wholly irrelevant to their capability).

      While a successfully structured equal opportunity system protects people of different levels of status from having that status prevent them from succeeding, a poorly structured equal opportunity system favors the status itself (whether as a positive or negative) over the talent. Thus, equal opportunity is meant to ensure free opportunity, not status opportunity.

      And that is my two bits on the subject...OK, maybe $1.95 on the subject.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Diabolical ().

    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      oceanhawk wrote:

      What about jobs, we need to lower the unemployment rate, especially among young people

      Candidates, what do you propose to sort out this issue?
      Hippo already said this, make more blue collar jobs.
      you cant if you attack rich hard earning people.
      Cant make any jobs, where you punish success, and reward failure



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      oceanhawk wrote:

      What about jobs, we need to lower the unemployment rate, especially among young people

      Candidates, what do you propose to sort out this issue?
      Hippo already said this, make more blue collar jobs.
      Government sucks in the manufacturing sector. However, tax cuts for corporations that specialize in heavy industry or energy will generate a huge influx of available blue collar jobs. Unfortunately, since most young people aren't willing to pass up the atheist indoctrination centers -- I mean, colleges, to instead learn trades, they can't (and usually won't) fill those blue collar jobs. So, by adding more blue collar jobs, we'll have to greatly increase legal immigration and work visas just to fill those positions.

      However, if society would just stop with the "everybody should go to college" mantra and realize that the higher learning of college is for people who are actually capable of higher learning (as in, having either a decently high IQ or are willing to really study hard), then perhaps the bulk of those party-school-seeking, kegger-binge-drinking, micro-aggression-fearing, and weekend-protest-chanting "general studies" students might be coaxed into choosing to go into the trades and learning how to actually make double the amount of money they'll earn in life through a little hard work than by getting a fake degree and then spending the next dozen years or so in their parents basement trying to figure out why their weekend protest activities aren't helping them to secure real work instead of their lackluster volunteer positions down at the local activist branch of their Community Coordinator Center for Malcontent Liberals.

      Wow, that last paragraph was just one very long sentence...one of my longest sentences in quite a while.probably one of my top ten longest sentences ever.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      Government sucks in the manufacturing sector. However, tax cuts for corporations that specialize in heavy industry or energy will generate a huge influx of available blue collar jobs. Unfortunately, since most young people aren't willing to pass up the atheist indoctrination centers -- I mean, colleges, to instead learn trades, they can't (and usually won't) fill those blue collar jobs. So, by adding more blue collar jobs, we'll have to greatly increase legal immigration and work visas just to fill those positions.

      However, if society would just stop with the "everybody should go to college" mantra and realize that the higher learning of college is for people who are actually capable of higher learning (as in, having either a decently high IQ or are willing to really study hard), then perhaps the bulk of those party-school-seeking, kegger-binge-drinking, micro-aggression-fearing, and weekend-protest-chanting "general studies" students might be coaxed into choosing to go into the trades and learning how to actually make double the amount of money they'll earn in life through a little hard work than by getting a fake degree and then spending the next dozen years or so in their parents basement trying to figure out why their weekend protest activities aren't helping them to secure real work instead of their lackluster volunteer positions down at the local activist branch of their Community Coordinator Center for Malcontent Liberals.

      Wow, that last paragraph was just one very long sentence...one of my longest sentences in quite a while.probably one of my top ten longest sentences ever.
      TL;DR tell Hippo that.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Ah, but while my run-on sentence defies normative grammatical rules in that one area, it is still technically well-formed and not just a mesh-mash of multi-part thoughts pressed together without the benefit of white space.

      There is a difference.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      oceanhawk wrote:

      What about jobs, we need to lower the unemployment rate, especially among young people

      Candidates, what do you propose to sort out this issue?
      Hippo already said this, make more blue collar jobs.
      Government sucks in the manufacturing sector. However, tax cuts for corporations that specialize in heavy industry or energy will generate a huge influx of available blue collar jobs. Unfortunately, since most young people aren't willing to pass up the atheist indoctrination centers -- I mean, colleges, to instead learn trades, they can't (and usually won't) fill those blue collar jobs. So, by adding more blue collar jobs, we'll have to greatly increase legal immigration and work visas just to fill those positions.
      However, if society would just stop with the "everybody should go to college" mantra and realize that the higher learning of college is for people who are actually capable of higher learning (as in, having either a decently high IQ or are willing to really study hard), then perhaps the bulk of those party-school-seeking, kegger-binge-drinking, micro-aggression-fearing, and weekend-protest-chanting "general studies" students might be coaxed into choosing to go into the trades and learning how to actually make double the amount of money they'll earn in life through a little hard work than by getting a fake degree and then spending the next dozen years or so in their parents basement trying to figure out why their weekend protest activities aren't helping them to secure real work instead of their lackluster volunteer positions down at the local activist branch of their Community Coordinator Center for Malcontent Liberals.

      Wow, that last paragraph was just one very long sentence...one of my longest sentences in quite a while.probably one of my top ten longest sentences ever.
      Yup, I completely agree. Everybody can't be an accountant, yet somehow that's what we expect of everybody. People should still receive education, of course, but they shouldn't feel obligated to pursue some white-collar desk job.
      Forum Gang Premier

      you are a balls

    • Sir McSquiggles wrote:

      Ive stated before, we are going to take back our jobs from the countries that stole them! We are going to make America more self sustainable, and lower unemployment rates. Also, the wall will need builders to build. ;)
      Are you a protectionist or an advocate for free trade?



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye