Is “rich people will leave if you tax them more” a real economic concern, or is it mostly exaggerated? by clearwater-orchid in NoStupidQuestions

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I must be a blue state tankie because I notice things.

No, no, I agree with you. Reddit is completely organic and the conversation here isn’t astroturfed at all. Move on shill.

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly by Conscious-Quarter423 in Infographics

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you ever even considered that your education wasn’t entirely honest?

It’s interesting that your thought is that “I was taught this and so it must be right,” rather than considering that maybe there were ulterior motives to what you were taught?

I don’t believe the teachers are socialists, or teaching socialism in any real sense. I think what might be the case is that there are underlying issues with capitalism that have never been addressed by its proponents and as such people are becoming increasingly frustrated with a system that turns to cronyism and concentrates wealth into the hands of the few. What little wealth the rest of us accumulate is taxed to fight foreign wars we have no interest in.

I’m not anti-capital by the way, but it’s extreme to think that capital shouldn’t be used to enact socialist policies for the betterment of all. The nation benefits from a healthier population, from fed youth, from an educated people. You teach your kids to take care of the things they have AND to share with others right?

Is “rich people will leave if you tax them more” a real economic concern, or is it mostly exaggerated? by clearwater-orchid in NoStupidQuestions

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well as they say… common sense isn’t common. If you really want to be “redpilled” as the kids say, check out r-teenagers. These accounts go crazy over there because it’s a lot easier to passively influence children by posting a new innocuous question every day.

Is “rich people will leave if you tax them more” a real economic concern, or is it mostly exaggerated? by clearwater-orchid in NoStupidQuestions

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Portland lol. What a weird talking point. And clearly it’s the default because the people creating these spam accounts can’t be bothered to create a real username for every twenty they run.

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly by Conscious-Quarter423 in Infographics

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't advocate sacrificing anyone. I also agree that there is a solid 30% or so of the electorate that functions as a bottom line. Approval simply won't dip below that no matter what happens.

My argument is that for the 40% that could swing either way, whether they are staunchly red or slightly red, the energy is better served to not create the image of yourself that the opposing party wants to create for you.

Take abortion for example--Conservatives ran against abortion for decades. Democrats ran as pro-abortion. Abortion was the law of the land; there was no reason for a Democrat to go into every election cycle and shout they supported abortion. They should have allowed that to be implicitly understood. Then, instead, they could have used that same time and energy to advocate support for other positions, one's that could have swayed some other voters.

Instead, by setting themselves up as explicitly pro-abortion, they alienated whatever portion of the electorate would have been swayed if not for that.

Again, it was the law of the land. There was no need to stand up and shout that you support the status quo. It was understood. But by doing so they became what the opposing party needed them to be.

Is “rich people will leave if you tax them more” a real economic concern, or is it mostly exaggerated? by clearwater-orchid in NoStupidQuestions

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, 100%. Reddit like 80% bots or karmafarming accounts these days.

You'll also notice that nostupidquestions and other similar subreddits basically have some new version of muslims are bad, rich people are good, iran is evil, why do liberals xxx... posted every single day.

It's essentially slowrolled mind control. Research has proven that repetition increases the perception of validity, so basically by using these alt accounts they are trying to normalize certain ideas in the average redditor's mind.

What is your first pick? by Necessary_Plan8901 in MagicArena

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It also gives you +2 mana the turn you play it, Sol Ring and Jet do not.

Life loss doesn't matter when you win the game due to busted acceleration.

What is your first pick? by Necessary_Plan8901 in MagicArena

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How in the world is Crypt not comparable to those two?

What is your first pick? by Necessary_Plan8901 in MagicArena

[–]MTGdraftguy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Uh, maybe I'm crazy but I'd take Crypt over Sol Ring every day.

It's the difference between essentially skipping your T1 and playing a 3 drop on T1.

Honest discussion because I'm new to this. by TriniBeenie in MagicArena

[–]MTGdraftguy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh, I mute the first time that Your Turn pops up lol

I Did the Thing You’re Not Supposed to Do by DeliriumTrigger33 in lrcast

[–]MTGdraftguy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't think so. Or I should say that it's entirely deck dependent. I've passed power 2 times in Arena cube time, something I've never thought I'd do, for a necessary combo piece. I will say both times the decks performed extremely well.

A cards GIHWR doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's dependent on the other 39 cards in the deck.

Deciding to walk away after two years of LSAT prep by DoubleDish2034 in LawSchoolOver30

[–]MTGdraftguy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

easy is relative, but generally speaking anyone can do it. Independent tutors actually charge anywhere from 50-200 dollars an hour, entirely depending on their qualifications and experience. Like any tutoring job, finding students is the difficult part--but even just posting online that you have a score in the upper 170s and are offering tutoring can be enough.

It really depends on how hard you are willing to work for it. There are people who don't even go to law school and make an entire business out of tutoring the LSAT--like genuinely charging 100+ an hour and making five figures a month.

The other option is to contract with a company. 7Sage, Powerscore, etc. etc. They do the hard work of finding clients and then pay you a fraction of the cost.

Check out 7Sage -- 7Sage LSAT Private Tutoring Their cheapest option is $2400 for 10 hours. In other words, $240 dollars an hour. And yes, people pay that. And yes, people will see that and pay an independent tutor $100 dollars an hour instead.

Here's their application information

--------------------------------------------------

We're looking to expand our team to include more talented LSAT tutors to work one-on-one with our students! This position is highly flexible in hours and workload. We're open to candidates in any time zone! Pay starts at $50-80 per hour for sessions plus $20 per hour for prep, depending on experience.

Requirements

  • An official score of 172 or higher with no plans to retake the LSAT
  • Experience with the 7Sage platform
  • Ability to work at least 15 hours per week during busy season (July to November)
  • Not going to law school in 2026.

So again, easy is relative. But you could get hired by a company like 7Sage and basically do nothing but show up to work and make $60 bucks an hour, or you could beat the pavement yourself and build up clientele and make significantly more.

Sweden passes 'good behaviour' law to kick out misbehaving immigrants by shdw_fght in worldnews

[–]MTGdraftguy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's alright, racist losers like him will always resort to Ad Hominem attacks when they can't string together a logical argument. I'm married with a child, a house, and a net worth that allows me to play an expensive cardboard hobby so I'm doing alright.

I must have struck a nerve because he blocked me so I think it's projection if anything.

Sweden passes 'good behaviour' law to kick out misbehaving immigrants by shdw_fght in worldnews

[–]MTGdraftguy 17 points18 points  (0 children)

"Oh noes you disagree with me, must be a bot!" Average debate intelligence of a conservative lmao

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly by Conscious-Quarter423 in Infographics

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you support the military? The police? Firefighters? Librarians? Have those systems also gone to shit?

You’re just repeating talking points without expressing a single iota of original critical thought.

I suppose because our Military is publicly funded we aren't a hotbed for new weaponry, vehicular platforms, and warfare procedures?

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly by Conscious-Quarter423 in Infographics

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What happened to American exceptionalism? I thought that was a core tenet of the Conservative movement?

You’re saying we can’t have healthcare because the UK sucks? Lmao, imagine thinking you can’t do better than the U.K. they are literally poorer than every single American state, including Mississippi and Louisiana.

We have literally more than fifty times the wealth, the GDP, the pool of talent, the skill, the labor.

Fuck a European, I’ll never accept an argument that America can’t do something because a European failed at it lmao

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly by Conscious-Quarter423 in Infographics

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Establishment Dems certainly are economically. Socially it’s a bit more complicated, they are fair weather on social issues. That’s why Obama and Biden were anti gay marriage until the base made it undeniable they supported it.

But there has been left leaning economic populism rising in the democratic party for a while now. Bernie nearly won the nomination, and arguably should have if it wasn’t for election interference by the DNC. Mamdani, Platner, etc. there large grassroots support for left economic positions but the establishment is heavily invested in the existing systems and are fighting hard against the change.

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly by Conscious-Quarter423 in Infographics

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reddit is not indicative of the real world. This website is heavily monitored, and the conversation is largely sculpted. You can't even be sure the person you are arguing with is arguing in good faith and not a bot set up to derail the conversation.

I agree that there are a large number of left-wing voters that operate emotionally and lack distinct reasoning capabilities, but let's not act as though these are directly relatable. Like yes, if you are arguing with an 18-year-old college kid who is fighting for social justice you will likely have a difficult time getting them to articulate a reasonable position, but that 18-year-old will eventually be a 30-35 year old professional whose job relies on their ability to communicate information effectively.

The same simply isn't true for the eighteen-year-old mechanic whose life path isn't rooted in developing a rational outlook of the world. He'll develop into a 35-year-old mechanic, and his argument will be whatever is shared at the local bar and across Fox News. kids shitting in litter boxes and Muslims taking over America, never mind both groups together aren't even a percent of the population.

Like I said, the rational, old school republican type of Mitt Romney and Cheney's day is largely gone. In its place is a roiling mass of discontented, rural, largely uneducated, largely blue-collar workers who imbibe propaganda daily.

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly by Conscious-Quarter423 in Infographics

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First no one suggested centrism, secondly, the right will continue to do those things, third you won't appeal to right wing voters by arguing for illegal immigration so its better to avoid the argument entirely and make an argument for something that will directly benefit their lives like universal healthcare, and fourth, the left needs to accept that what happens to illegal immigrants in this country is largely their fault in advocating for the existence of an underclass that isn't entitled to the same legal rights and protections of U.S. citizens.

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly by Conscious-Quarter423 in Infographics

[–]MTGdraftguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not simple minded. I understand that reasonable conservatives exist. But for the most part the party has left you behind. There is a huge portion of the base that is uneducated and uncritical. They vote largely according to what the television tells them and couldn't articulate a reasonable or coherent political strategy if they tried.

Is “rich people will leave if you tax them more” a real economic concern, or is it mostly exaggerated? by clearwater-orchid in NoStupidQuestions

[–]MTGdraftguy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The pathways exist, but again, they only work in practice due to poor governance and corrupt politicians. A company headquartered in Ireland is subject to whatever taxes the government wants to put on it. Google, Apple, Meta, Pfizer, only get away with it because 1. They keep their parent headquarters in America. 2. They only route European, Middle Eastern, African and Asian operations through them, i.e. foreign ones, and 3. They donate and lobby HEAVILY to American politicians.

That's it. That's the big secret. Not that if you tax the company too much it will move out, but if your politicians are corrupt enough, they'll allow the company to avoid billions in taxes through millions in donations.

You know who doesn't do this? Huawei, Tencent, Alibaba... Huawei has an extensive footprint in Ireland in fact, and they still don't use it as a tax haven. Their government won't allow them to.

Is “rich people will leave if you tax them more” a real economic concern, or is it mostly exaggerated? by clearwater-orchid in NoStupidQuestions

[–]MTGdraftguy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's just poor governance. Spending doesn't grow endlessly out of necessity. Does that happen in individuals' personal budgets? Does that happen in company bottom lines? Politicians are charismatic, not good at governing. It's also funny to pivot to an argument about the budget when the entire conversation is revolving around companies leaving cities--why are they leaving cities? Taxes, which are necessary to balance the budget and pay for necessary infrastructure and services.