2018 Midterm Election Thread

[volfanhill]

It's nowhere near that simple. Your failure to realize that may be the root of the problem.

See my edit

 

[AirVol]

Got a link?

Don’t need a link if you have common sense. But I know you aren’t playing dumb.

 

[luthervol]

Please answer the question. Is your "indicator" that it's about personal greed and selfishness?

I don't understand your question, but I would think that personal greed and selfishness would be factors.
How would you divide the 100 points?

 

[BeecherVol]

People should only take care of those they want to take care of. Not by government mandate. It’s that simple.

The government has proven themselves irresponsible with our money. They should never get a dollar more. And that’s both parties who f this up. I give the Dems credit for one thing. They are at least up front about stealing my money and running deficits. Republican officials like to claim they aren’t.

Well put.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't understand your question, but I would think that personal greed and selfishness would be factors.
How would you divide the 100 points?

I'm not sure how more plainly to ask the question. You said that that is the defining indicator, a person's belief on tax burdens and "fair" share. I'm asking you to bluntly state what it indicates. You seem skiddish to do so.

 

[BeecherVol]

It's more about how the tax burden is shared and the revenue spent.

Which is a propaganda driven machine toward buying votes.
The spending of "revenue" is a hilarious thought by itself.

 

[luthervol]

See my edit

The government fills the void that society leaves.

 

[Mick]

Don’t need a link if you have common sense. But I know you aren’t playing dumb.

The extent of your common sense is 'but dems".

 

[luthervol]

I'm not sure how more plainly to ask the question. You said that that is the defining indicator, a person's belief on tax burdens and "fair" share. I'm asking you to bluntly state what it indicates. You seem skiddish to do so.

Not skiddish in the least. I answered the question.
I notice you've yet to divide the 100 points.

Plus: I said it is ONE of the best self-definers. NOT that it is THE defining indicator.

 

[luthervol]

Which is a propaganda driven machine toward buying votes.
The spending of "revenue" is a hilarious thought by itself.

It's the rent you pay for living here. Does that make it more palatable?

 

[volfanhill]

The government fills the void that society leaves.

And continues are March to financial ruin

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The government fills the void that society leaves.

 

[BeecherVol]

It's the rent you pay for living here. Does that make it more palatable?

I'm just laughing at the idea that the government best fills this void by taking your taxes and redistributing it for votes and the next election.

Keep on believing bro, Trump got yo back.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not skiddish in the least. I answered the question.
I notice you've yet to divide the 100 points.

I find it to be a ridiculous way of judging someone's greed/etc. I refuse to play by your rules. I would give each of them 100, as my faith would inform. That is a crude way to divide the balance of personal responsibility and help for the needy.

Why do you believe taxes and gov't assistance the only mechanism through which a person should express generosity and help? You seem to demand socialism, and hold that up as the icon of generosity when volunteerism is generosity expressed without compulsion. So, with volunteerism as an option, how can you use a person's views on taxes as the indicator per their charity or desire to help others?

It seems shortsighted and ill conceived.

 

[BeecherVol]

And continues are March to financial ruin

Luther may understand guns better than government taxing and spending, and he's clueless about the first.

 

[luthervol]

I find it to be a ridiculous way of judging someone's greed/etc. I refuse to play by your rules. I would give each of them 100, as my faith would inform. That is a crude way to divide the balance of personal responsibility and help for the needy.

Why do you believe taxes and gov't assistance the only mechanism through which a person should express generosity and help? You seem to demand socialism, and hold that up as the icon of generosity when volunteerism is generosity expressed without compulsion. So, with volunteerism as an option, how can you use a person's views on taxes as the indicator per their charity or desire to help others?

It seems shortsighted and ill conceived.

lol......You could have just given them each 50. Props for at least going that far.
I never said I believe taxes and gov't assistance is the only mechanism. It's not. Not even close. Volunteerism and voluntary philanthropy are far superior to paying taxes.

 

[Orange_Crush]

lol......You could have just given them each 50. Props for at least going that far.
I never said I believe taxes and gov't assistance is the only mechanism. It's not. Not even close. Volunteerism and voluntary philanthropy are far superior to paying taxes.

Then how can you use a person's view on taxes as any sort of indicator?

 

[Orange_Crush]

lol......You could have just given them each 50.

I could have, but it wouldn't have sufficed to have shown how ridiculous the question was, and how insufficient is is to show what you tried to make it show.

 

[85SugarVol]

Yes it's net. That's the only sensible way of looking at it. Some states take and some states provide. Kind of like people. (frequently there are legitimate explanations)

Don't overlook the fact that the states that are net givers tend to vote blue and the states that are net takers tend to vote red. Ironic on the surface, but not below the surface.

Net is one way of looking at it. Not sure it’s the only way.

This was originally a discussion of “aid”. Not sure what those receiving aid in their respective states have to do with the Federal Income taxes being paid from their state.

 

[luthervol]

Then how can you use a person's view on taxes as any sort of indicator?

We were talking "fair" share.

 

[BeecherVol]

Then how can you use a person's view on taxes as any sort of indicator?

Because he cant define "fair share".

It's best that its open ended in case you need to buy more votes later. "Fair share" may not seem fair enough in 10 years.

 

[BeecherVol]

Reminds me of the "we wanted to ban all guns" compromising racket not too long ago.

 

[luthervol]

I could have, but it wouldn't have sufficed to have shown how ridiculous the question was, and how insufficient is is to show what you tried to make it show.

100 / 100 or 50 / 50 is the same.
You view them as exactly equal. I gave you props. Even though I don't completely agree.

 

[AirVol]

The extent of your common sense is 'but dems".

Yeah it’s no different than you “but Republicans”.

My party doesn’t threaten the President, members of the Senate and Congress. They don’t protest with violence and call people names like racist, nazis blah blah blah.
I haven’t heard you condone such acts so that only means you are part of the problem and a damn commie.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We were talking "fair" share.

Yes. Which you couldn't support, by the way. And we were talking fair share through tax burden. How can you use views on taxes as your personal indicator of a person's generosity and care for others if you also agree that volunteerism is a better expression of generosity than socialism?

I don't think you thought your views through very well. A person can be very personally charitable while not believing richer people OWE society more than anyone else. A person can be very personally charitable while believing that taxes/gov't are not the best or most appropriate way to help others.

Your blind adherence to socialism seems to have created irrational conclusions.