It doesn't. Because he is not in Canada, buying his way into Canadian politics, and cutting government programs that could affect you.
In the US though, that is a different story.
The exodus from the left
- Thread starter K Douglas
- Start date
In the US though, that is a different story.
Getting back to the point. Obama is not a libertarian.
It was a silly statement that would have behooved you to have backed off.
Last edited:
We all know that you can't figure out how to use the ignore function any more than you know how to format your posts.
As the cons say, there is always the option not to post
SK has become more and more argumentative. This has become common on social media.
I have always said we can disagree, but keep it conversational. And no, what about this and what about that. Well that didn't resonate, how bout this? We can see the relentless pursuit of self-righteousness doesn't make for civil discourse.
Last edited:
I suspect a great deal of his wealth is on paper. Much of that then backs further investment in other enterprises.
Progressives conceptualize money differently.
Americans in general are not good judges of what is liberal, libertarian or conservative.
American political discourse is so propagandized and intellectually deficient that it has distorted what these terms actually mean.
For example, they consider fascism as conservatism. They consider right libertarian views as liberal. They consider centrist/center left beliefs as progressive or far left.
These are inaccurate characterizations that seem to make sense in America because America is so far down the right wing rabbit hole.
However, they (and by extension, you) are incorrect.
So per actual definitions of what these terms really mean and how they are used globally:
- Stalin and leaders like him are far left authoritarian.
- Noam Chomsky is left libertarian.
- Bernie, AOC etc are center left or progressive or liberal - a spectrum but essentially social democrats.
- Obama is right libertarian or centrist at best.
- Bush is right wing authoritarian.
- Trump is fascist.
I doubt you'll ignore me John. I'd love for that to be true. But trolls gotta troll, so I'm sure you'll pollute another thread sooner than later.
And yet with all your responses, you have not provided one Obama policy or position that anyone would identify as Libertarian.
Now I'm sure your going to dig around the internet looking for something that can stick, but it's quite a bit late.
@JohnLarue see what I was saying in post 125. Instead of a straightforward discussion on Obama's political leanings, I get a historical mini-dissertation on various political leaders. You would think in all those responses we would get one libertarian leaning of President Obama. Hell, even Shaq explaining that libertarianism means something different to him would have been a step-up in the discourse.
Last edited:
I would not say I'm more argumentative, just calling his bullshit for what it is. He is the one that started with attacking me and my character, so I gave it right back to him. I believe that you and I have had good discussions. But the reason being is you're not an asshole.
I don't have to dig around. Its quite easy.
He supported same sex marriages and signed a law ending don't ask, don't tell for example.
Libertarianism is essentially anti-authoritarnism that prioritizes personal freedoms and these policies are reflective of that.
Ahhh, I knew you would go to same sex marriage. Obama shifted his views on same sex marriage as opposed to civil unions out of political expediency. While I don't consider myself a libertarian, I long favored same sex marriage for both social and legal reasons.
To be clear, I was not opposed to Obamacare in principle. Of course, it was Obama's biggest policy action during his Presidency. However again, it is antithetical to libertarian ideals. Libertarians clearly believe it is up to each individual to decide (uncoerced) if they want to obtain health insurance. Under Obamacare, the U.S. government initially penalized those who opted out of health insurance.
This is exactly what I was referring to.
The claim that Obamacare “coerces” people into buying insurance is a distortion by the authoritarian right. Libertarians themselves do not generally consider this coercion.
While libertarianism values voluntary choice, the “penalty” was part of a trade-off to guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Nearly all Americans recognize the value of health insurance, especially those who were previously denied coverage.
Requiring enrolment in exchange for protections is not authoritarian - it’s a practical compromise.
Framing it as coercion misrepresents both libertarian thought and the reality of public support for health insurance.
think this will cause an exodus from MAGA?
trump is many things including mean spirited, vindictive and egotistical
he says some outrageous things to remain in the spotlight, he is not aways truthful and he likes to bully others- he uses leverage
but he is not stupid
he is going to steal a big chunk of our auto-industry- he uses leverage
not a nice guy, but certainly not stupid
AOC is a blithering idiot
only a blithering idiot would have proposed the green new deal as a serious policy option
it was / still is an unachievable fantasy
not when you misrepresent the green new deal as a serious policy option
trying to back door socialism when the front door (ballot box) remains denied is black hearted , evil and a serious void of conscience
another set of nice tits appears everyday
Last edited:
You are correct. The vast majority of Elon's wealth is in stock options. So, he isn't necessarily liquid (as in, has ready access to just billions in cash), and if he sold those options, he would be crushed by income and capital gains taxes. So, instead, he uses his stock options as collateral and borrows money from lenders. This is not considered income, and in some circumstances can be written off from his actual income tax. So, he can buy Twitter without having to tap into his actual fortune and pay income tax on that...
The issue here is that the wealthy have access to the greatest tax attorneys and accounts in the country. They know the legal loopholes, and can aggressively game the system so that on a proportional rate a minimum wage worker probably pays a significantly larger percentage in income taxes. Basically, since Elon and other billionaires (like Zuck, Bezoes and Ellison) tend to see the majority of their compensation in stock options, it is incredibly difficult to get them to pay their fair share of taxes. And, with the GOP making it easier for them to get tax breaks, they are paying even less today than before Trump took office. Is that good for the US, where the top 1% pay a tiny fraction of their actual income c compared to the dude who manages a Subway restaurant?
The major issue here is that Elon can avoid paying into the system that would help people. Now, I know there are MANY differences to how Americans and Canadians view taxes, or how that income is spent by the governments. Canadians are more socialist, and want that money to provide a social safety net and good schools. This includes things like universal healthcare, paid maternity leave and EI benefits. This social assistance is virtually unknown in the US. Sure, they have Medicare, but that's being rolled back. They have SNAP, but again, that's being rolled back. I'm not here to argue that our system is too generous, but you can see how getting just a bit more from the ultrarich could solve a lot of the issues the US faces. Or, at the bare minimum, force these captains of industry to pay their workers better.
Only a blithering idiot would still be denying climate change, larue.
