Political Candidate Poll

Dear God people

Trump literally said that blacks are inherently lazy, it's in their DNA.
He said a judge can't be fair because he's Mexican.

How in God's name is he not racist?

 

He isn't a standard politican. So he'll say things he do not actully mean

Dut irony
Edit: Sanders is leading in the polls!

 

You have failed to answer my question

 

"He's not a politician so he gets to be the racist"

What

 

To answer your question: It will never be impossible for terrorists/others l to get guns. But the fact is that facts show that gun related deaths are more severe/x amount of people in places were guns are more common and in places where gun laws are less strict. And as i have said ealier, there's rearly (if at all) american superheros who save people with their guns.

It was irony....

Dut irony did refer to the irony, not to the fact that sanders is leading in our poll

 

Thank God you were being sarcastic you scared me

 

I am an atheist

 

Bruh it's a figure of speech...

 

Socialism works until you run out of other people's money. Government would have too much control. We're the land of the free, not the land of needy people relying on government.

 

I know....

It is clear that a purely kapitalistic system doesn't work. It does not matter wether you look at Great Britan or France in the late 19th century/early 20th century. Both had very kapitalistic systems, and the income and wealth distributions were insanely unfair as i am sure you can imagine.

So it is a fact that we have to have some socialistc programs. There's certain tasks the government does best. Health care for example. It is proven to be more efficiet when the goverment is in charge of it by a lot of european countries, and as i have said earlier, the idea of making profit of peoples health sounds bad. Social security is a socialistic program. The army is basicly a socialistic program (this can be debated and a common argument against it is that the weapons and tanks etc is made by private companys competing in the free market. But the argument is bs (can explain why later if ya want)).

So the question really is what shade of red we should be in order to be an as succesful society as possible. The thing is that the most succesful societys have been countries like sweden in the 1960s-1970s. The secound world war is a part of the cause though (the secound world war was a cause of signiicant redistribution of wealth, mostly in fairer direction). I would go even further and say that sweden wasn't left wing enough at that point.

I just have to say a few things about education. Just look at finland.. they're a tiny nation and look at how succesful they are: Supercell (clash of clans, boom beach, hay day, clash royale), Nokia, Linux (android, ubuntu and so on), Kone, F-secure and many, Rovio (angry birds) and SSH communications security.

Eidit: i do agree that we need a bit of kapitalism. It simply the best solution for some things. Socialism is better for some things, kapitalism for other things.

 

Um
Gun laws wouldn't take away guns

They would make it harder for people with criminal intent to obtain them.

Like, I don't know if you know, but Canada has strict gun licence for both buyers and sellers and we have had exactly one attempt at a shooting which was stopped before anyone died.

Maybe if you thought about it you would realize that guns DO kill people, and people who want to kill people use guns.

Socialism works just fine up here boi.

 

"Run out of other peoples' money"

Dude

Money doesn't "run out", it's recycled through an economy

You really don't understand how the world works, do you?

 

I do live in it, so I kinda understand how it works. I'm for small government and freedom. Not where the government has all the control. It's an opinionated world we live in, so each have their own ideas of what works and what doesn't.

 

It's an world with a lot of ideas we live in. But sadly, most of them are stupid. Beeig for small government and believing it means freedom can be seen as a stupid one. It is clear that a small government limits freedom more than a medium sized (sweden/finland for exmpe) goverment.

 

There's more opinions xD all ideas can be seen as stupid

 

But like
You can't have an opinion that 2+2=5

In an economy in which the government has high influence, you don't run out of money. The only good example of running out of money is in the US, where so much money is being held in the top 1%. With government influence, you wouldn't have that problem.

 

I have to point out that the distribution of wealth isn't as horrible as the distribution of income when it comes to the united states compared toother countries. The total weatlh/the total income is still pretty low in the us. But tw/tt is increasing. The reason why it is like this is that the amount of time during which people have accumulated more wealth is still low.

All off our ideas will be wrong to a certain exctent. It's a question about how close to the truth you come. Some do obviously come closer that others.

 

Possibly, but that again, is just another opinion. After all, this thread does have in the title "opinion" xD

 

We can actually use facts here.. wait a bit




Edit: added facts