Mock Presidential Race pt. 2

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

This is what happens when you invite the English... everything becomes a mess. That's why Scotland has to gain independence. Vote Scottish National Party, gain independence from the soon to be failing UK **cough*brexit*cough**.

Spain and France have temporarily vetoed Scotland from entering the EU, and you will only enter when you achieve independence from England, which under my government, will not happen.

Either way... You can take our EU, but you can never take our FREEDOM!

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Are you saying Spain would intervene in a Scottish independence movement, or Spain would not let Scotland join the EU if (when) it does gain independence.

Either way... You can take our EU, but you can never take our FREEDOM!

Pablo22510 wrote:

Not, but Spain and France can prevent them from joining.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Why would they?

Pablo22510 wrote:

Don't know 'bout France, but Spain has Catalonia, and if Scotland managed to join the EU, Catalonia would be encouraged to do the same.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Don't know 'bout France, but Spain has Catalonia, and if Scotland managed to join the EU, Catalonia would be encouraged to do the same.

So France have no reason? Moot point then.

Pablo22510 wrote:

I didn't say they had no reason. Just said that if there was a reason behind it, I don't know it.

Quasi-duck wrote:

So no known reason? Yeah...

Pablo22510 wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

So no known reason? Yeah...

No, I said I don't know the reason.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

So no known reason? Yeah...

No, I said I don't know the reason.

Yeah, so no known reason.

Whatever.

To Quasi Duck and to Pablo:

The way you two go back and forth -- totally dominating these discussions with tons of little posts -- it's like you are a married couple.

Why don't you just get a room...

If Duck is a girl...then Pablo may be happy about this (I can only assume).

.

.

Oh yea, did I mention that I have no idea whether Quasi Duck is a girl or a boy. I have leaned to the male side based on posts...but not all of his/her posts.

Diabolical wrote:

The way you two go back and forth -- totally dominating these discussions with tons of little posts -- it's like you are a married couple.

Why don't you just get a room...

If Duck is a girl...then Pablo may be happy about this (I can only assume).

I wouldn't know...I'm a quadriplegic.

Diabolical wrote:

I wouldn't know...I'm a quadriplegic.

Crusades? Karma? Oh, you're rich...real rich. Of course, you realize I'm not really a quadriplegic. But what if I were? You shouldn't shoot your mouth off and insult others.

And I would never order a crusade against the people of Islam or atheism. I would order a crusade against their powers (i.e., governments and caliphates). As far as individuals go, I'm a one on one evangelist. I believe that governments wage wars. But individual Christians don't fight wars individually. Our individualized mission from God is to go and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

When a Christian is in power in a government, he or she is ordered by God to conduct political affairs according to His will in a national manner. Spreading the Gospel is not a part of a national source, only a national destination. Thus, I would never be able to order an entire people to evangelize. But I could order a people to go to war. That is one of the chief functions of government.

Oh, and I still don't actually know your gender. But, if there's any question, I'm a male.

Diabolical wrote:

Crusades? Karma? Oh, you're rich...real rich. Of course, you realize I'm not really a quadriplegic. But what if I were? You shouldn't shoot your mouth off and insult others.

And I would never order a crusade against the people of Islam or atheism. I would order a crusade against their powers (i.e., governments and caliphates). As far as individuals go, I'm a one on one evangelist. I believe that governments wage wars. But individual Christians don't fight wars individually. Our individualized mission from God is to go and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

When a Christian is in power in a government, he or she is ordered by God to conduct political affairs according to His will in a national manner. Spreading the Gospel is not a part of a national source, only a national destination. Thus, I would never be able to order an entire people to evangelize. But I could order a people to go to war. That is one of the chief functions of government.

Diabolical wrote:

Oh, and I still don't actually know your gender. But, if there's any question, I'm a male.

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

If the government gives them money they will lose incentive to actually do it properly, it is better if their own stakes and investments are involved. Public funded privately run, is eve worse than publicly funded and publicly run

If they are just getting paid by the government they may not even bother actually doing the reseach etc as they already making money. It is better if they or other companies in the private market invest, as with the risk there will also come an incentive to work harder and not slouch.

This happened when they built the first planes, the government financed one company, they took the money and then said " it cant be done" meanwhile 2 brothers took some of their own cash and invested it in their business. Because they have put in money etc, they worked hard and then the Wright brothers made the first aeroplane, there are many examples of this.

Incentives are small enough to mean that the company or scientific institute researching can't survive solely of them. And there have been many cases where revolutionary breakthroughs have been delayed because people didn't have the money to continue research.

oceanhawk wrote:

See price controls will destroy incentives to have improve healthcare, and will then there will end up with very little healthcare available, and the little services provided, only the wealthy will have access.

It is better to encourage and support small GPs etc and make a more competitive market which will lower healthcare costs..

I do admit price controls give a bit of a 'dis-incentive', but if the NHS is privatised, we have to make sure that people can afford private healthcare. Reducing prices doesn't necessarily mean that you are making the health industry unprofitable.

oceanhawk wrote:

Okay, well that is awful. That is just disgusting. That will destroy the incentives to have wealth. And wealthy people and companies will leave the UK, and take their investments with them. Now with us losing so much companies following the brexit, do you really think it is a good time to drive more companies from the UK?

Dude, those tax rates I just gave are like really low. Currently in the UK, anyone over 32,000 gets taxed just over 40%. It goes up to 50% when you earn more than 150,000. So I lowered them a lot. i honestly don't know where you're going to get the money from.

oceanhawk wrote:

That is a very very very bad idea. The government giving money out, is not an incentive. It will create large monopolies. So not only are big companies doing well, but now they get huge amount of money from the government. So they will become lazy and ineficent , wont innovate at all, mean while small business wont be able to break into any market..

Errrrr... If you read the post I said I will subsidize small businesses.

Quasi-duck wrote:

*makes use of report fucntion*

There's no such thing as a 'report fucntion'.

Yes but it is destroying the incentive to have wealth, price controls are the worst thing.

Firstly economic lesson,

The Laffer curve is a simple economic principle, once a tax rate goes above 30% the amount of income from tax falls.

This idea, I recently watched a good video about it, discussed by the head of the board of economic advisors to president OBAMA, so even the most left wing economists agree on this. So no tax rate should ever be above 30%

And ideally it should be lower

Get money for what?

Lower tax rates bring more money, ( until it gets below 29%)

K but governments really need to keep a step back form private enterprise, for every bodies benefit.

For a 3rd runway at Heathrow vote Ocean!

oceanhawk wrote:

For a 3rd runway at Heathrow vote Ocean!