neutralgrey 
@Mike
And that, in a nutshell, is why Trickle Down Economics is a load of shit!
Sorry I couldn’t help myself!
And that, in a nutshell, is why Trickle Down Economics is a load of shit!
Sorry I couldn’t help myself!
Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)
Background Pony #65D2
No, we’re calling it a scam because he promoted it as a plan to help low wage earners and small businesses,doesn’t it though?
I don’t think you know what a scam is. A scam is a dishonest scheme; a fraud.like asking for money for a product while not having any intention on producing said product.
I know what a scam is. That’s why I keep using the word to refer to the tax plan. He promoted it as one thing, and it ended up being the opposite of that. It’s a scam.
@Cyborg_pony
@Cyborg_pony
It’s like you’re mad Trump said “Hey, you want a Pepsi?” And not only does he buy someone a Pepsi, but he gets one was well.
No, I’m mad because it’s like Trump said, “I’m going to give a bunch of Pepsi to the middle class and small businesses, and I won’t get any”, and then they passed a bill that gives the middle class and small businesses a single, tiny can of store brand cola, and builds a Pepsi bottling plant in his backyard.
@Cyborg_pony
@Cyborg_pony
They said the wars would end and there will peace on earth would happen under Obama. I’m sure I don’t need to explain what really happened.
I’d like to see the source on that quote, because I can’t seem to recall ever seeing that one.
But hey, perhaps the Republican senate vetoed peace along with everything else he tried to do.
But hey, perhaps the Republican senate vetoed peace along with everything else he tried to do.
LeoNero 
Shine On U Crazy Diamond
@neutralgrey
I always thought Trevor would make a good economics teacher.
I always thought Trevor would make a good economics teacher.
Violet Rose in The Rain 
Of course, someone is probably going to invoke the Genetic fallacy at because the word “Marx” is mentioned at some point, but hey, what can I do about that?
And another thing.
Since one of the site mods decided to post a YouTube video explaining how Trickle Down Economics doesn’t work, I might as well throw my hat into the ring and post a link to a video called: Republican Tax Bill Is A Monstrosity - Richard Wolff
Since one of the site mods decided to post a YouTube video explaining how Trickle Down Economics doesn’t work, I might as well throw my hat into the ring and post a link to a video called: Republican Tax Bill Is A Monstrosity - Richard Wolff
Richard David Wolff is an American Marxian economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis. He is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Utah, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City.
Of course, someone is probably going to invoke the Genetic fallacy at because the word “Marx” is mentioned at some point, but hey, what can I do about that?
Thanotos Omega 
Stuff like this is why you should research potential lovers thoroughly before starting a relationship, Neo Nazi murdered his girlfirend’s parents over them exposing him and trying to get her to dump him,
Cyborg_pony 
@Thanotos Omega
Since HuffPo has been known to be a insidious and opportunist rag in the past year, and seeing this all hems on posts none of the articles seem to show and they “considered” him a white surprimesist.
Knowing all this, and the boogyman the world wants, I almost wonder if this guy just didn’t kill them knowing his life would be ruined anyways thanks to the new moral panic of “Neo-Nazis”
I mean a liberal rag like Huffpo having a “Neo-Nazi” murderer, they’d must of been salivating over that.
Also, this is all alleged, for all we know the parents might have attacked him and he panicked, again knowing no one would come to his aid in todays climate. Even according to the reports, the parents were vary overbearing. They could have tried to force a breakup, but caught him in her room early in the morning (That tends to happen) and tried to attack him leading to self-defense as if he snuck in to kill them, I doubt he’d have only shot the parents and no one else.
Just some things to chew on, before anyone gets the Ole’ Lynchin’ tree noosed up.
Since HuffPo has been known to be a insidious and opportunist rag in the past year, and seeing this all hems on posts none of the articles seem to show and they “considered” him a white surprimesist.
Knowing all this, and the boogyman the world wants, I almost wonder if this guy just didn’t kill them knowing his life would be ruined anyways thanks to the new moral panic of “Neo-Nazis”
I mean a liberal rag like Huffpo having a “Neo-Nazi” murderer, they’d must of been salivating over that.
Also, this is all alleged, for all we know the parents might have attacked him and he panicked, again knowing no one would come to his aid in todays climate. Even according to the reports, the parents were vary overbearing. They could have tried to force a breakup, but caught him in her room early in the morning (That tends to happen) and tried to attack him leading to self-defense as if he snuck in to kill them, I doubt he’d have only shot the parents and no one else.
Just some things to chew on, before anyone gets the Ole’ Lynchin’ tree noosed up.
Ereiam 
Monde de merde
@Cyborg_pony
Doesn’t surprise me that you’d try and defend the neo-nazi guy.
Oh well, anything to shift the topic away from your inability to convincingly argue that Trump’s tax cuts will cause the next economic boom thanks to the imaginary wonders of trickle-down economics, right?
Doesn’t surprise me that you’d try and defend the neo-nazi guy.
Oh well, anything to shift the topic away from your inability to convincingly argue that Trump’s tax cuts will cause the next economic boom thanks to the imaginary wonders of trickle-down economics, right?
Commune 
🚙
@Cyborg_pony
“Kuhn-Fricker alerted the principal of the teen’s high school to concerning social media posts from the boy and called him an “outspoken Neo-Nazi” in messages to friends, the Washington Post reports. She flagged social media posts where the boy lauded Hitler, supported Nazi book burnings and called for a “white revolution,” according the Post. “
Ok, he totally isn’t a Neo Nazi piece of shit
“Kuhn-Fricker alerted the principal of the teen’s high school to concerning social media posts from the boy and called him an “outspoken Neo-Nazi” in messages to friends, the Washington Post reports. She flagged social media posts where the boy lauded Hitler, supported Nazi book burnings and called for a “white revolution,” according the Post. “
Ok, he totally isn’t a Neo Nazi piece of shit
Scrabbleman 
[screams in German]
Reminder that this exists.
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.”
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.”
Violet Rose in The Rain
Someone gave me this:
@Cyborg_pony
“Kuhn-Fricker alerted the principal of the teen’s high school to concerning social media posts from the boy and called him an “outspoken Neo-Nazi” in messages to friends, the Washington Post reports. She flagged social media posts where the boy lauded Hitler, supported Nazi book burnings and called for a “white revolution,” according the Post. “
Ok, he totally isn’t a Neo Nazi piece of shit
Someone gave me this:
The kid mowed a swastika into the lawn of a local park two weeks before he murdered his girlfriend’s parents, among other things.If that idiot you quoted had read articles not from the Huffington Post, the daughter had started regurgitating neonazi nonsense at her parents after dating that kid, that her parents had forced an intervention over it, and that he did sneak into her room over the holiday while carrying a loaded gun.
Violet Rose in The Rain
Reminder that this exists.“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.”
Archonix 
Retired Ass
The graphic is false. Weimar Germany was not remotely tolerant of views outside of a particular set and in fact enacted some of the more authoritarian speech laws of the era, often specifically aimed at preventing the nazi party from speaking.
When Hitler’s party negotiated a working majority in the cancellery, he used those speech laws, and the president’s emergency powers under which they were enforced, to remove anyone from parliament who he wanted, including many of those whose parties had negotiated with him.
Hitler gained power because he was able to - often with some justification - claim that the state was using its power to silence him out of fear that his ideas were correct. He also claimed that the state was using the proxy of far left gangs to silence his followers with violence.
He won his power on the back of these claims. Had he been left alone, had his rhetoric been tolerated instead of violently suppressed (which allowed him to claim status as an underdog against the overweening state and the spectre of the hard left) his party would have remained as just another of the many street gangs that were so prevalent at the time.
Violence and suppression create sympathy for those suppressed. AS good example would be my own country, where hate preachers in places like Luton were ignored as crazy nobodies until a combination of gang violence and official attempts to silence them propelled them to prominence, galvanised their followers and created sympathy and support for them amongst people who had previously not cared a whit for any sort of islamist ideals.
Violent and state suppression of undesired speech create the very thing that they’re trying to prevent. Inevitably, that violence and the laws that powered that suppression are turned on their creators.
When Hitler’s party negotiated a working majority in the cancellery, he used those speech laws, and the president’s emergency powers under which they were enforced, to remove anyone from parliament who he wanted, including many of those whose parties had negotiated with him.
Hitler gained power because he was able to - often with some justification - claim that the state was using its power to silence him out of fear that his ideas were correct. He also claimed that the state was using the proxy of far left gangs to silence his followers with violence.
He won his power on the back of these claims. Had he been left alone, had his rhetoric been tolerated instead of violently suppressed (which allowed him to claim status as an underdog against the overweening state and the spectre of the hard left) his party would have remained as just another of the many street gangs that were so prevalent at the time.
Violence and suppression create sympathy for those suppressed. AS good example would be my own country, where hate preachers in places like Luton were ignored as crazy nobodies until a combination of gang violence and official attempts to silence them propelled them to prominence, galvanised their followers and created sympathy and support for them amongst people who had previously not cared a whit for any sort of islamist ideals.
Violent and state suppression of undesired speech create the very thing that they’re trying to prevent. Inevitably, that violence and the laws that powered that suppression are turned on their creators.
Commune
🚙
@Archonix
Maybe the reason so many wanted to silence Hitler was because his party was made out of Freikorps members, people who tried to overthrow the Government, and that Hitler himself also tried to overthrow the Government
And they also have dangerous racist rhetoric meaning if they did overthrow the government, it would be very bad
It’s like having Former Al Qaeda members form a Party in America, you shouldn’t really expect friendliness from the locals, let alone the Government
Maybe the reason so many wanted to silence Hitler was because his party was made out of Freikorps members, people who tried to overthrow the Government, and that Hitler himself also tried to overthrow the Government
And they also have dangerous racist rhetoric meaning if they did overthrow the government, it would be very bad
It’s like having Former Al Qaeda members form a Party in America, you shouldn’t really expect friendliness from the locals, let alone the Government
Patachu 
@Archonix
It’s been over 80 years, when will we get over Hitler and the Hitlerisms and sanitize the political debate without evoking the Third Reich like the default, only single evil political alignment that marked the History?
Now we have a complete generation brainwashed into a paranoia, a belief that nazis are everywhere and going to take over the world and gas trillions, a paranoid, scared, heinous group who sees persecution everywhere, and the real irony is, that’s how the natsoc party was created. fueling on the fear of the masses.
also hell, the huff, CNN, slate, vice and all of this press is what people should be worried about.
It’s been over 80 years, when will we get over Hitler and the Hitlerisms and sanitize the political debate without evoking the Third Reich like the default, only single evil political alignment that marked the History?
Now we have a complete generation brainwashed into a paranoia, a belief that nazis are everywhere and going to take over the world and gas trillions, a paranoid, scared, heinous group who sees persecution everywhere, and the real irony is, that’s how the natsoc party was created. fueling on the fear of the masses.
also hell, the huff, CNN, slate, vice and all of this press is what people should be worried about.
Violet Rose in The Rain
I’m just going to copy and paste what I said some time ago.
Edit: We could probably stand to learn from a professor who lived through World War II. Just a thought.
The graphic is false. Weimar Germany was not remotely tolerant of views outside of a particular set and in fact enacted some of the more authoritarian speech laws of the era, often specifically aimed at preventing the nazi party from speaking.When Hitler’s party negotiated a working majority in the cancellery, he used those speech laws, and the president’s emergency powers under which they were enforced, to remove anyone from parliament who he wanted, including many of those whose parties had negotiated with him.Hitler gained power because he was able to - often with some justification - claim that the state was using its power to silence him out of fear that his ideas were correct. He also claimed that the state was using the proxy of far left gangs to silence his followers with violence.He won his power on the back of these claims. Had he been left alone, had his rhetoric been tolerated instead of violently suppressed (which allowed him to claim status as an underdog against the overweening state and the spectre of the hard left) his party would have remained as just another of the many street gangs that were so prevalent at the time.Violence and suppression create sympathy for those suppressed. AS good example would be my own country, where hate preachers in places like Luton were ignored as crazy nobodies until a combination of gang violence and official attempts to silence them propelled them to prominence, galvanised their followers and created sympathy and support for them amongst people who had previously not cared a whit for any sort of islamist ideals.Violent and state suppression of undesired speech create the very thing that they’re trying to prevent. Inevitably, that violence and the laws that powered that suppression are turned on their creators.
I’m just going to copy and paste what I said some time ago.
Remember when The Nazi party of Germany was allowed their platform and it just fizzeled itself out because everyone thought Hitler’s ideas were laughable? Oh, what do you mean that’s not how it went?This idea only makes sense if you think propaganda doesn’t work. Most people are idiots and believe anything they hear if it confirms their biases. I think maybe 5% of people are capable of saying “hearing this makes me feel good and validates my beliefs…I better be super skeptical of it.”People are not logical creatures. Give nazis a platform and at least 50% of conservatives will eat that shit up.If you give Nazis big platforms and wide audiences to recruit and spread their message you’ll surely end up with less Nazis! /s
Edit: We could probably stand to learn from a professor who lived through World War II. Just a thought.
Archonix
Retired Ass
@Commune
I also wouldn’t expect them to get elected.
But I would expect them to gain a lot more sympathy and support if violent gangs started attacking them in the street, and then attacking anyone who disagreed with that use of violence. I’d expect more support if the government suppressed their speech because they expressed ideas that people found distasteful. I’d expect them to start getting elected soon after that, because now they can claim that they’re fighting for the rights of the people against the oppressive state and the violent opposition.
I also wouldn’t expect them to get elected.
But I would expect them to gain a lot more sympathy and support if violent gangs started attacking them in the street, and then attacking anyone who disagreed with that use of violence. I’d expect more support if the government suppressed their speech because they expressed ideas that people found distasteful. I’d expect them to start getting elected soon after that, because now they can claim that they’re fighting for the rights of the people against the oppressive state and the violent opposition.
Violet Rose in The Rain
@Archonix
Here’s the thing about trying to ignore them: It’s never going to work.
Do you know why the saying “There’s a sucker born every minute?” Is a thing in the first place? It’s because there will invariably be an ignorant few out there who will be drawn in by their rhetoric.
These hate speeches don’t occur a vacuum. If they happen in cities with a high population density (Or anywhere else with humans, for that matter.) Or propagate their propaganda online, some people will be drawn in by curiosity, which could lead to radicalisation.
It would be nice in theory if everyone could turn their backs on them. But this is real life.
I would also like to point out that ignoring such rallies would lead to their normalisation, which isn’t desirable in any case.
People do not become fascists because of seeing them on TV or hearing about a counter demonstration on the news. They become fascists for a lot of very varied reasons and deep-seated hatreds. Lying down and letting them walk all over our society isn’t going to help, because that isn’t and was never the problem to begin with.
Off the top of my head, I can only propose two solutions: Not allowing the press to report such incidents (Which would be laughable, given the media’s propensity to report on everything with the rise of the internet’s role in spreading news, thanks to its near-instantaneous speeds of communication.) or simply not allowing them a platform to speak in the first place (Restricting permits for them to protest and making such gatherings illegal.)
If you got an idea beyond “Maybe if I ignore it long enough, it’ll go away”, let’s hear it. When has sweeping any problem under the rug ever worked?
Here’s the thing about trying to ignore them: It’s never going to work.
Do you know why the saying “There’s a sucker born every minute?” Is a thing in the first place? It’s because there will invariably be an ignorant few out there who will be drawn in by their rhetoric.
These hate speeches don’t occur a vacuum. If they happen in cities with a high population density (Or anywhere else with humans, for that matter.) Or propagate their propaganda online, some people will be drawn in by curiosity, which could lead to radicalisation.
It would be nice in theory if everyone could turn their backs on them. But this is real life.
I would also like to point out that ignoring such rallies would lead to their normalisation, which isn’t desirable in any case.
People do not become fascists because of seeing them on TV or hearing about a counter demonstration on the news. They become fascists for a lot of very varied reasons and deep-seated hatreds. Lying down and letting them walk all over our society isn’t going to help, because that isn’t and was never the problem to begin with.
Off the top of my head, I can only propose two solutions: Not allowing the press to report such incidents (Which would be laughable, given the media’s propensity to report on everything with the rise of the internet’s role in spreading news, thanks to its near-instantaneous speeds of communication.) or simply not allowing them a platform to speak in the first place (Restricting permits for them to protest and making such gatherings illegal.)
If you got an idea beyond “Maybe if I ignore it long enough, it’ll go away”, let’s hear it. When has sweeping any problem under the rug ever worked?
ArmadilloEater
Administrator
French Taunter
@Archonix
Lemme try an allegorical version.
@Violet Rose in The Rain
You want to create a system where ideas can be suppressed.
And yet you do not understand that this system will then be used against you and anyone that disagrees with whoever takes control of that power to control speech.
You’re creating the monster that will destroy you after it has destroyed your enemies.
Lemme try an allegorical version.
@Violet Rose in The Rain
You want to create a system where ideas can be suppressed.
And yet you do not understand that this system will then be used against you and anyone that disagrees with whoever takes control of that power to control speech.
You’re creating the monster that will destroy you after it has destroyed your enemies.
ArmadilloEater
Administrator
French Taunter
@Violet Rose in The Rain
You seem to be under the impression that letting people speak is an issue.
No.
Letting them speak unchallenged is the issue.
If you are scared that their influence will grow, then build arguments against them. Convince people that their view is bullshit. Create a movement that will grow faster than your opponent. Be better than them.
If you HAVE to resort to violence or suppression to win an argument, then you have already lost.
You seem to be under the impression that letting people speak is an issue.
No.
Letting them speak unchallenged is the issue.
If you are scared that their influence will grow, then build arguments against them. Convince people that their view is bullshit. Create a movement that will grow faster than your opponent. Be better than them.
If you HAVE to resort to violence or suppression to win an argument, then you have already lost.
Patachu
@Commune
Indeed, the banks and the current state of economy is catastrophic, and this is where we have to turn the page of Ad Hitleriums, which prevents everyone to actually have a serious debate about the state of the world without entering the twentieth century drama and rhetorics, this is what keeps the world of politics in a static state. Disagree with the current, flawed model? Point at the responsible, you get accused of antisemitism.
It will take courage to get over this and have a serious talk about what and who controls this world.
like i said, it’s the banks, and megacorporations. not the governments, or even the market.
Indeed, the banks and the current state of economy is catastrophic, and this is where we have to turn the page of Ad Hitleriums, which prevents everyone to actually have a serious debate about the state of the world without entering the twentieth century drama and rhetorics, this is what keeps the world of politics in a static state. Disagree with the current, flawed model? Point at the responsible, you get accused of antisemitism.
It will take courage to get over this and have a serious talk about what and who controls this world.
like i said, it’s the banks, and megacorporations. not the governments, or even the market.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!