What are the actual non meme explanations of what causes liberals to be so retarded?

he's not wrong. san fran's problems are associated to homogenizing prices and government mandates over how business get started.

Classic liberals are far-right to the modern left.

t. a retard

Did you know Republicans actually freed the slaves bro

>he's not wrong. san fran's problems are associated to homogenizing prices and government mandates over how business get started.
The elephant in middle of the room concerning San Francisco is a huge buy-up of real estate from Red Chinese nationals, raising the rents and kicking out the lower middle class. This creates no where for them to afford. Restrict and cease properties owned by Chinese and the situation would fix itself.

Liberals are fucking stupid coz they don’t have brains and barely passed high school. Literally with bare minimum grades. And can’t get jobs, coz they suck at life

Attached: 1352735386.jpg (2450x1344, 199K)

those liberals might as well be hitler compared to modern ones

reported, anons please do the same , fuck this nigerian

> Red Chinese nationals, raising the rents and kicking out the lower middle class.
nice /pol/ meme.
No instead the reality is they require so many mandates on housing, it props up the prices in areas which would be considered cheap housing, and taxes the rich areas which don't need mandates - thereby homogenizing prices to one singular price. If you cannot afford that price, then you cannot afford to live in san fran. It props up living expenses - the whole nine yards.
Not to mention starting a new business over there is incredibly expensive simply because of all the red-tape associated with it.
San fran people don't care though - they want to keep the poor out, and they want their town nicely subsidized by the govm't.

Doing the same on all fucking posts since a few days, faggot

I mean yes technically however that is a fairly misleading statement as that implies that Republicans at the time had values that aligned with Republicans today, when in reality a few years late Republicans and liberals sorta flip flopped in terms of their main platforms. But yeah Republicans freed the slaves, bro

Interesting read actually
factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/

Speaking as a moderate, that isn't typically the case. Liberal thinking has overrun most college campuses, and professors of all types seem to think their opinion on abortion matters when they're supposed to be teaching fucking math. Doctors, lawyers, and a laundry list of other high-paying vocations are occupied by liberals

You're thinking about the insane liberals, the ones that think there are an infinite number of genders and the murderous cunt Bruce Jenner is a hero because he grew his hair out and put on a fucking dress.

They're sheltered, they're young, and they're weak. You're not going to stop kids from bullying by whining about and saying it's super mean. The social media age has amplified shitty behavior, so they go out thinking the world is like that and that we all need to be 100% inclusive and always nice... unless you're not liberal. They never grow a thick skin, they just whine about shit.

people who are sane and lean left exist, maybe more than the insane liberals, but social media has amplified the insane ones and given them their echo chambers

TL;DR They're naive, they may be indoctrinated, and they're thin skinned

Technically but only in name. The parties switched

>people who are sane and lean left exist,
the ones i respect are the ones not trustworthy of the market - that standard oil should be checked.
those who recognize people should be allowed to form unions.
an i have a ton of respect for any liberal who wants to prioritize social spending on a local level, rather than a federal one.

Many more liberals tend to think in broad generalizations. For example they just associate unions as a godsend so they any criticism of them gets a knee jerk reaction. Cases on mandatory union membership is a good example of this

>prioritize social spending on a local level
Yeah, the problem with that is that it is voluntary and there isn't nearly as much accountability if things go wrong. We have a cultural mindset in this country of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps", at least the older generations do, so getting people who aren't billionaires to donate of their own volition on a local scale can be quite difficult. Unless it's a dollar in a wicker basket and there's a cross involved

>mandatory union membership
people should have the right to form a union, but an individual should have the right to not be in it.
both sides claim "they can do it better." so get them to compete and see who actually is better.

>that standard oil should be checked
I don't know what exactly you mean by that. People in general are untrustworthy of our government, as they should be. It's at an all time high actually

>people should be allowed to form unions
In the private sector, in the public one they shouldn't. Government workers should be held to a higher standard. I know someone who works in human services and it is fucking asinine what people get away with because of the unions

>so getting people who aren't billionaires to donate of their own volition on a local scale can be quite difficult
only when the government is already "taking care of it" whenever the government starts to do something, it crowds out private entities.
so people run into what you're talking about: "Helping the poor isn't my problem, it's the government's job." mentality

Every liberal pundit and academic I've read thinks mandatory union membership is extremely good

If we're going to have anti trust regulations on firms, then allowing unionization of labor actually is pretty retarded and unjustified

>Helping the poor isn't my problem, it's the government's job.

Eh, i'm sure that does happen, but the main thing most people on the left and right have a problem with when new programs are suggested is who is going to pay for it. Everyone thinks free healthcare and education sounds nice but most don't want to pay more in taxes for it. That comes from the mentality.

>it crowds out private entities
Not necessarily. Look at public defenders, they're almost unilaterally known for being shit and good attorneys are highly sought after. The field is highly competitive and requires a certain aptitude. Same goes for free doctors in Canada

I really can't speak on that I don't know enough about it. There's another thing I feel is exclusive to liberals, they think their opinion on something they know fuck-all about has any value. Like fucking anti-vaxers.

>I don't know what exactly you mean by that. People in general are untrustworthy of our government, as they should be. It's at an all time high actually
sure. but there are questions concerning the ethics behind certain situations where either one group or entity gets all of the benefits, while everyone remains the same; or when businesses buy up all of their competition.
there are many who might feel this distribution is unfair, and are willing to be inefficient in order to make it more ethically preferred.

You mean like Amazon? I'm a believer in the free market but I understand the need for anti-trust laws in certain situations.

The market will decide and if your product or platform is shitty enough people will stop using it or find an alternative

Attached: 1880913166.jpg (1866x1620, 192K)

>Not necessarily.
it does when it comes to many common instances - one of those cases is charitable giving.
>who is going to pay for it.
sure, and many would be dramatically surprised how taxes and subsidies actually work, if they actually looked into it.
For example: It's well known the subsidies people get for going to higher level education is a subsidy for the middle class and the rich, but a tax on the poor. That's uncomfortable for people to grasp with.

Wut?

Attached: 6764400263.jpg (1884x1454, 170K)

Attached: 1479747933144.jpg (2500x1645, 160K)

anti-trust laws are largely dictated by whether or not the customer being served is satisfied by the potential market dominator. if they are, anti-trust cases typically don't end up fruitful.

>one of those cases is charitable giving
I don't think government sponsored programs would hurt charitable giving in general. Maybe for the given problem it's trying to fix. If the program is lacking or there is major mismanagement, then the people will know and there will be people who can be held accountable.

Just look at how abused private schooling and private prisons are, both of which are partly subsidized by tax-payer dollars.

>subsidies people get for going to higher level education
A subsidy is wildly different from being free though, which could help the poor out a lot. There's a litany of problems with higher education though that would help if addressed before we ever got to offering it for free.

LONG MOUSE

True. Many people are not happy with Facebook and google right now, on both sides of the isle. Which is probably why it is being brought up.

he is right though and its not a pol meme. Here in Vancouver we had the same problem. We instituted a foreign buyers tax and all of the sudden sales and prices dropped.

>A subsidy is wildly different from being free though
no it really isn't. you are just subsidizing down to a price of zero.
the reason why its a subsidy to middle-class and rich, is because they have the opportunity costs in line to actually go to higher-level education - this isn't really the case for the poor. Many either don't have the time, or the proper education to stay afloat.

Another poorly designed subsidy is the subsidy to hybrid cars in an effort to reduce gasoline consumption. It's like trying to subsidize light cigarettes to reduce smoking.
Taxes on gasoline, or cigarettes in these cases make more sense if you want to reduce the consumption of them.

interesting - didn't know that.

>Many either don't have the time

Maybe in some cases, though they would have a lot more time if they weren't busier trying to pay for everything in college. Free college would help them more than it would help the people who have the money for it (the middle and upper class)

>or the proper education to stay afloat
Yeah, that's part of what I meant by problems that should be addressed first, but people in general don't want to pay more even for that.

>you are just subsidizing down to a price of zero.
Which is wildly different for those who are paying for it.

>they have the opportunity costs in line to actually go to higher-level education
Well the cost point is null if the education is free.

Attached: aoc.jpg (1635x1008, 232K)

>Free college would help them more than it would help the people who have the money for it (the middle and upper class)
no it doesn't. you cannot go to college, and study, and work at the same time. there are trade-offs.

there are ways to help the poor get a better education, just a subsidy through some government loan to higher level education isn't really a wise choice.
>Well the cost point is null if the education is free.
Costs are not absolute - they are relative. The price of something is not it's cost. The price of something is what you could be getting instead of that "thing".

Attached: 0504172690.jpg (2308x1616, 153K)

>you cannot go to college, and study, and work at the same time. there are trade-offs.

People do it all the time dude. Making the tough slightly less so is undeniably helpful.

>there are ways to help the poor get a better education
I'm all ears. If you have a better suggestion then have at it, otherwise you're not helping in the discussion just being dismissive.

>Costs are not absolute
They are when the cost is zero.

> The price of something is not it's cost.
Gonna have to elaborate on that, because it's incredibly vague and an oxymoron.

I'm not naive, I know free college, up to say 4 years, isn't a guaranteed fix for everyone. To say it won't help everyone I find a bit silly though. It isn't the best argument i've heard against free college either.

There are always opportunity costs

>smarter people
>more than 2 genders

Pick one retard

>there are trade-offs
These? Yeah if things are that bad you probably need more than a job that takes up literally 100% of your time. You're talking about people so poor they're literally eligible for food stamps dude. The minority of a minority.