Political leanings of CDC

[Lancaster]

I always wondered.... how do you feel about the political affiliation of others?  I mean, do you think how they reached to their stance?  If you disagree with their POV, do you just think that they are misinformed, secretly bigoted, naive in their ivory towers, whatever?

 

For myself, I'm obviously more right of centre, but socially centralist (my own opinion).  If I was American, I would have probably voted for Trump or whoever the Tea Party candidate would have been.  

But I'm not the stereotypical bible thumping white guy growing up on a farm, driving my pickup truck, with a loaded shotgun on my passenger seat.  I'm a 2nd generation CBC, with working class parents who grew up during the Cultural Revolution in China, mom loves Mao and probably is a commie, father always votes Conservative/Reform, I'm now doing my post-grad and married to a Japanese immigrant.  

Yet I firmly believe in free speech, equal rights to all, minimal taxation, prefer private health care (suffered both the pros and cons of public), pro-gun rights, prefer government involvement to be the last resort to all issues (I'd rather the community take care of itself first), supporter of the nation-state, pro-business, and hope that everyone just leaves everyone else alone.

But I have friends with almost similar background as me, some are like me but others are probably those SJW, BLM, types.  Some more rhetoric than facts.... a lot of "I heard this and that from some commentator about that guy.... and I don't agree with what I think I heard about that guy".

I've also heard from my wife who used to take those english for immigrant classes and she come across people who don't believe their wive should be allowed to be out and about by themselves, or they don't believe that genders are equal.... or some people who just loves the Chinese Communist Party and they think it can do no wrong (or rarely does).... I think those people are like suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.... yet my wife just thinks that as long as they are all happy, we shouldn't view their situation through our lenses.  

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

This doesn't even make sense and sepratism has no place in Canada imo.

Like I said, I am confused!

 

But seriously, I believe that the rules of confederation are largely written in favour of Ontario and Quebec, and that BC residents, do not get a large say in how the country is ran like the residents there do. Power is held by those that establish first, which is hi-lited by how a small island (which is a province) on the East Coast of Canada gets a disproportionate share of MP's compared to the Island that is on the West Coast......this is again hi-lited by the new constitution, which gives Quebec 1/4 of all MP's no matter how many people are in the rest of Canada. This is also emphasized by the fact that there is French writing on all cans of food in BC, but no English writing on a lot of the cans in Quebec.

 

I believe in fairness, and transparency, I do not believe this Country is done that way, and I believe we (BC) could do it alone, much better, with agreements with our neighbors to the North, South, East and West. I do not believe we get a good deal. I do not believe in the federalist point of view on our National Energy Program, nor do I believe in how we have set our treatment of our first nations in BC.

 

In saying all that, we still live in a wonderful country, what is much better than our neighbors to the south, North Korea or Russia, or a hell a lot of other countries for that matter.

I am very scattered in my views, being a socialist, a nationalist and a capitalist is my views, and I believe in freedom of speech and of the press......I also believe you are entitle to your opinion, of what I can think...…..although if you force me to think other, I would call you a Dictator.

 

But carry on...……..

 

 

[Kragar]

On 10/2/2018 at 4:29 AM, Ilunga said:

You obviously did not get my point or read the speech I asked you to check out.

I define fiscally conservative as not spending more money than one, in this case a society makes.

I would fund the socially progressive ideas that cost a society it's wealth by legislating a redisdtribution of wealth in a way similar to the way Huey long describes in his speech, every man a king, but in modern terms.

 Example from said speech he states 12 people own more than 120.000.000 million people.

I would redisdrebute that wealth.

 Like I stated read the speech then you will understand what I mean.

I do understand that he was going to run for president , a month after delivering this speech he was assinated.

He was already enacting policies similar to the ones he describes in his speech in his home state of Louisiana where he was governor.

Sorry, fiscal conservatism and wealth redistribution do not belong in the same realm of thought.

 

For starters, the problem lies in what the wealth really is.  It is not a matter 12 people sitting on a pile of money that adds up to the same pile of money comprised of the 120M people you reference.  That would be easy (not that it would last, but that's another story).  Those 12 people have their wealth invested in businesses, real estate, and numerous other investments. 

 

How do you steal that wealth from those 12 people in the first place redistribute that wealth?  Assuming there is a viable solution for that problem, how do you break those investments down into allotments for the masses to receive their fair piece of the pie?  You can't just give everyone an equivalent value in cash, since many/most of those investments are not liquid.  Perhaps give them all shares?  What do they do with the money if they want to sell?  Do those who keep their shares have any say in how the company is run?  If so, do you have any faith in the company getting anything done at that point, since you have taken the power away from the wealth builders and gave it to the public?  And, at what point does any of that come anywhere close to fiscal conservatism?

 

How many of those 120M people live by your interpretation of fiscal conservatism?  Almost 40% of US households carry a revolving balance on their credit card.  Over 100 million people (almost a third of the population, not just households) have a car loan.  44M people down here have student loan debt ($1.5 trillion!).  What makes you think that the tens of millions of people you aim to "help" via redistribution know what to do with wealth?  The biggest reason for revolving credit card balance: unnecessary spending.  Why do people have car loans?  Because they look at the payment they think they can afford, not at the vehicle they can afford.  And, considering the number of students who go out of state because they feel like it/it will be fun/my friends are doing it/blah blah blah, and thereby pay higher (multiples) of the rates of tuition in their home state, what signs are there that these people should be trusted with the wealth created from wise investments of others more fortunate and/or successful?

 

Ultimately, before any efforts can be made towards redistribution and have it make a noticeable difference, those who will receive it need to know what to do with it.  So long as they continue spending beyond their means, the gap will continue to widen, no matter how much the government can confiscate for them. Just look at all the broke lottery winners, celebrities and athletes.  How do people piss away millions of dollars, when that money should set them up for life?

 

Huey Long's interpretation of the Declaration of Independence was wrong.  If he was right, then redistribution would have been enshrined in the Constitution.  But, it wasn't.

 

As for the 12 people he was talking about, how many of their family members are on the list of richest people today?  Where did people like Gates, Buffett, Ellison, Walton, Bezos, Bloomberg, and Jobs get their money?  Their parents sure weren't rich.  Should you take their wealth, and put it in the hands of the rest of us?  Is that fair?  Or right?  Or, fiscally conservative?  Strikes 1-2-3.

[Ilunga]

8 hours ago, Kragar said:

Sorry, fiscal conservatism and wealth redistribution do not belong in the same realm of thought.

 

For starters, the problem lies in what the wealth really is.  It is not a matter 12 people sitting on a pile of money that adds up to the same pile of money comprised of the 120M people you reference.  That would be easy (not that it would last, but that's another story).  Those 12 people have their wealth invested in businesses, real estate, and numerous other investments. 

 

How do you steal that wealth from those 12 people in the first place redistribute that wealth?  Assuming there is a viable solution for that problem, how do you break those investments down into allotments for the masses to receive their fair piece of the pie?  You can't just give everyone an equivalent value in cash, since many/most of those investments are not liquid.  Perhaps give them all shares?  What do they do with the money if they want to sell?  Do those who keep their shares have any say in how the company is run?  If so, do you have any faith in the company getting anything done at that point, since you have taken the power away from the wealth builders and gave it to the public?  And, at what point does any of that come anywhere close to fiscal conservatism?

 

How many of those 120M people live by your interpretation of fiscal conservatism?  Almost 40% of US households carry a revolving balance on their credit card.  Over 100 million people (almost a third of the population, not just households) have a car loan.  44M people down here have student loan debt ($1.5 trillion!).  What makes you think that the tens of millions of people you aim to "help" via redistribution know what to do with wealth?  The biggest reason for revolving credit card balance: unnecessary spending.  Why do people have car loans?  Because they look at the payment they think they can afford, not at the vehicle they can afford.  And, considering the number of students who go out of state because they feel like it/it will be fun/my friends are doing it/blah blah blah, and thereby pay higher (multiples) of the rates of tuition in their home state, what signs are there that these people should be trusted with the wealth created from wise investments of others more fortunate and/or successful?

 

Ultimately, before any efforts can be made towards redistribution and have it make a noticeable difference, those who will receive it need to know what to do with it.  So long as they continue spending beyond their means, the gap will continue to widen, no matter how much the government can confiscate for them. Just look at all the broke lottery winners, celebrities and athletes.  How do people piss away millions of dollars, when that money should set them up for life?

 

Huey Long's interpretation of the Declaration of Independence was wrong.  If he was right, then redistribution would have been enshrined in the Constitution.  But, it wasn't.

 

As for the 12 people he was talking about, how many of their family members are on the list of richest people today?  Where did people like Gates, Buffett, Ellison, Walton, Bezos, Bloomberg, and Jobs get their money?  Their parents sure weren't rich.  Should you take their wealth, and put it in the hands of the rest of us?  Is that fair?  Or right?  Or, fiscally conservative?  Strikes 1-2-3.

Great post.

Love the detail.

 

The American Constitution is a joke to the rest of the world ! 

All MEN  are created equal, that discounts over half your population right there.

Then take into account African Americans, Hispanics , they are certainly not treated in an equal manner in your society.

And before you critise us here in Aus, we are exactly the same, white privilege is kinda like energy, was, is and probably always will be.

 

One can rationalise anything. 

Fiscal conservatism and wealth distribution do not belong in your thought, not everyone agrees with you.

However most people are apathetic and the people who control us have most thinking they cannot make a difference.

 

If you believe that it is right that a few have so much wealth they could not spend it in ten lifetimes while others in the same society are homeless, have trouble putting food on the table then there in no point debating this subject with you.

I can already see by your final statement there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

 

What I do know is the current state of the world economy cannot sustain itself.

I heard today that there are fears of another GFC in the near future, the level of debt both personal and national debt is certainly unsastainable.

 

Now that I have rejoined a couple of the fantasy leagues I do not really have the time for off topic.

 

I do respect you, however I disagree with your premise.

 

[The Beagle had landed]

On 10/1/2018 at 10:10 AM, canuckster19 said:

With all the politically charged hubbub going on I thought it would be interesting to get a perspective of how CDC feels they lean politically.

 

So here's the chart, pick the coordinate that suits you, votes are anonymous.

 

Apologize for my lack of MS Paint skills.

 

I prefer to think outside of the box.

[Russ]

13 hours ago, Lancaster said:

I always wondered.... how do you feel about the political affiliation of others?  I mean, do you think how they reached to their stance?  If you disagree with their POV, do you just think that they are misinformed, secretly bigoted, naive in their ivory towers, whatever?

For me I don't really care about peoples political affiliation.  My friends are pretty much split down the middle politically and federally for various reasons, wether its their profession, their beliefs, etc.  I am willing to have people have different views and challenge me on their views and sometimes I may sway either right or left, sometimes I may think they are misinformed and being unreasonable with their ideas but they believe something different and I am sure they believe the same thing towards me if I can't wrap my head around their points when they are hell bent on their ideas being superior over mine.  I generally understand why people believe what they do, I feel I can see things from both sides of the argument pretty good but that doesn't mean I will agree with what they say.

 

Politically I am pretty centered, I will usually call a spade a spade if I don't like how the government is doing something (I will call out both left and right) but financially I am more conservative just because more and more taxes are being throw onto the average joe in an already tight pocket that many people live with.

[Kragar]

17 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Great post.

Love the detail.

 

The American Constitution is a joke to the rest of the world ! 

All MEN  are created equal, that discounts over half your population right there.

Then take into account African Americans, Hispanics , they are certainly not treated in an equal manner in your society.

And before you critise us here in Aus, we are exactly the same, white privilege is kinda like energy, was, is and probably always will be.

 

One can rationalise anything. 

Fiscal conservatism and wealth distribution do not belong in your thought, not everyone agrees with you.

However most people are apathetic and the people who control us have most thinking they cannot make a difference.

 

If you believe that it is right that a few have so much wealth they could not spend it in ten lifetimes while others in the same society are homeless, have trouble putting food on the table then there in no point debating this subject with you.

I can already see by your final statement there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

 

What I do know is the current state of the world economy cannot sustain itself.

I heard today that there are fears of another GFC in the near future, the level of debt both personal and national debt is certainly unsastainable.

 

Now that I have rejoined a couple of the fantasy leagues I do not really have the time for off topic.

 

I do respect you, however I disagree with your premise.

 

As far as the Constitution goes, you are aware that it is over 200 years old... things were a little different then, and it has been amended since to deal with some failings of the time.  I'm curious to know what joke it is to others.  I understand many have issues with the 2nd Amendment, which we do not need to go into further here (plenty of other threads for that).  That piece aside, there is plenty to admire about the Constitution, and it has inspired many countries over the years in their progress towards being free societies.  It's not perfect, but it surely set the bar for close to 200 years.  If it is such a bad Constitution, and the US is such a racist country, then why do so many people come to live here, permanently, every year... more than any other country on the planet?

 

I agree with you that the wealth gap is a concern.  It is sad that there are so many homeless and/or hungry people here.  Will taking wealth from those that have it, and arguably could afford to lose it, solve the problem?  Those people are apathetic because they made choices that led to their situations, or made choices not to do something to improve their situation fearing it was too risky or too much hard work.  "People who control us"?  Please.  

 

How many of those homeless people are there because of drugs or other addictions?  How many lived otherwise clean lives but borrowed (and borrowed, and borrowed) their way into poverty?  How many got married and/or had kids too young, before they established proper financial habits?  That's not to say those who have made bad choices don't deserve any help.  But I do not see taking from the rich/one percent/whatever you want to call them as the ultimate solution.  Maybe if schools taught us about handling money instead of encouraging us to go to colleges we cannot afford, or taught us the impact of paying ourselves first against the burden of maxing out a credit card, we might all be better off.

 

I completely agree with you that the levels of debt are unsustainable.  The question is, what are people going to do about it?  We each can easily control what we do at the personal level.  Are we going to?  That all comes down to personal choice.  All I can do is: 1.  do what I can for my family; 2. hope others do better than they are, and; 3. help others as best I can.

[Ilunga]

7 hours ago, Kragar said:

As far as the Constitution goes, you are aware that it is over 200 years old... things were a little different then, and it has been amended since to deal with some failings of the time.  I'm curious to know what joke it is to others.  I understand many have issues with the 2nd Amendment, which we do not need to go into further here (plenty of other threads for that).  That piece aside, there is plenty to admire about the Constitution, and it has inspired many countries over the years in their progress towards being free societies.  It's not perfect, but it surely set the bar for close to 200 years.  If it is such a bad Constitution, and the US is such a racist country, then why do so many people come to live here, permanently, every year... more than any other country on the planet?

 

I agree with you that the wealth gap is a concern.  It is sad that there are so many homeless and/or hungry people here.  Will taking wealth from those that have it, and arguably could afford to lose it, solve the problem?  Those people are apathetic because they made choices that led to their situations, or made choices not to do something to improve their situation fearing it was too risky or too much hard work.  "People who control us"?  Please.  

 

How many of those homeless people are there because of drugs or other addictions?  How many lived otherwise clean lives but borrowed (and borrowed, and borrowed) their way into poverty?  How many got married and/or had kids too young, before they established proper financial habits?  That's not to say those who have made bad choices don't deserve any help.  But I do not see taking from the rich/one percent/whatever you want to call them as the ultimate solution.  Maybe if schools taught us about handling money instead of encouraging us to go to colleges we cannot afford, or taught us the impact of paying ourselves first against the burden of maxing out a credit card, we might all be better off.

 

I completely agree with you that the levels of debt are unsustainable.  The question is, what are people going to do about it?  We each can easily control what we do at the personal level.  Are we going to?  That all comes down to personal choice.  All I can do is: 1.  do what I can for my family; 2. hope others do better than they are, and; 3. help others as best I can.

Again great post, you make great points.

As for your point about your constitution it seems to be returning to its roots with a racist, mysogynistic bigot running the show.

Women's rights are going backwards however that seems to be happening in many countries. 

With Kavanaughs  appointment one can realistically believe that there is a good chance Roe v Wade will be overturned.

Our society seems to be heading down a similar path.

In some some states abortion is illegal and the religious dudes are complaining about the fact their freedom of speech,religious beliefs are being inhibited by not being allowed to force their beliefs on others.

 

Your last three points are totally true, i could not agree more ,especially your last point, that really reasonates with me.

They tell me that you are a person that one can a have a rational, logical debate with.

This is getting harder to do both online and in ones own society.

 

Big time respect.

 

[Kragar]

3 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Again great post, you make great points.

As for your point about your constitution it seems to be returning to its roots with a racist, mysogynistic bigot running the show.

Women's rights are going backwards however that seems to be happening in many countries. 

With Kavanaughs  appointment one can realistically believe that there is a good chance Roe v Wade will be overturned.

Our society seems to be heading down a similar path.

In some some states abortion is illegal and the religious dudes are complaining about the fact their freedom of speech,religious beliefs are being inhibited by not being allowed to force their beliefs on others.

 

Your last three points are totally true, i could not agree more ,especially your last point, that really reasonates with me.

They tell me that you are a person that one can a have a rational, logical debate with.

This is getting harder to do both online and in ones own society.

 

Big time respect.

 

Thanks for the support and the discussion.  It helps to have a civil conversation, even when there's disagreements.

 

We've got some differences of opinion in the first paragraph, but there's no need to divert the thread further.  We can chat elsewhere if you like, but I hear ya when it comes to fantasy sports   Good luck!

[Boris Badenov]

Ultra-left. Never seen a political diagram with that box. 

[Shift-4]

[189lb enforcers?]

Give the OP credit for trying. 

 

For all all of you who claim to think for yourselves...

 

I came across this video tonight. It’s not the best, but it does hammer out 2 great points where the Right differs from the Left. 

 

There are probably better examples, but if you’re interested, it’s 5 minutes. 

 

 

 

[canuckster19]

Interestingly enough, as of right now CDC is a B.96 and 3, so basically a C3. Not really surprised.