General US Politics

[Phoenix Wright]

ok, so is socialist patriotism mutually exclusive to communism? if so, how is this idea not simply a rebranding of nationalism?

yeah, it's a useless question. just like, "why didn't einstein write his 1905 papers in 1904," or, "why didn't nasa get funding to go to the moon in 1967," or, "why didn't hitler win the war?" all you get are answers for why these things could not have happened, which would have been obvious from normal historical analysis (given enough evidence). then, all you're left with are hypothetical questions, which are equally useless to historical analysis (which is simply understanding why something happened.)

pointing out that genes are left to "chance" (which isn't entirely accurate) is very silly. the fact that any of us are here having this silly discussion is simply up to chance. all of us were up to chance. history is up to chance! it's all a gamble of who'll be born and when, and simply observing how chance plays out!

If, say, Lincoln's did had fucked his mom in a slightly different manner, Lincoln would have been a completely different person, as his genes would have been altered. There wasn't a reason that his dad fucked his mom the way he did; it was up to chance, and that is why I can't agree with Determinism.

i respect and admire your passion for history, but i admit i must strongly suggest you pay more attention to your other subjects. that is a literally laughable rationale for rejecting determinism.

(also, determinism isn't rigid--it's a spectrum.)

[blah the Prussian]

ok, so is socialist patriotism mutually exclusive to communism? if so, how is this idea not simply a rebranding of nationalism?

yeah, it's a useless question. just like, "why didn't einstein write his 1905 papers in 1904," or, "why didn't nasa get funding to go to the moon in 1967," or, "why didn't hitler win the war?" all you get are answers for why these things could not have happened, which would have been obvious from normal historical analysis (given enough evidence). then, all you're left with are hypothetical questions, which are equally useless to historical analysis (which is simply understanding why something happened.)

pointing out that genes are left to "chance" (which isn't entirely accurate) is very silly. the fact that any of us are here having this silly discussion is simply up to chance. all of us were up to chance. history is up to chance! it's all a gamble of who'll be born and when, and simply observing how chance plays out!

i respect and admire your passion for history, but i admit i must strongly suggest you pay more attention to your other subjects. that is a literally laughable rationale for rejecting determinism.

(also, determinism isn't rigid--it's a spectrum.)

Okay, lets stop this whole determinism thing as at this point it's just parroting opinions at each other. In any case, Socialism meets patriotism is closest to Gregor Strasser's version of Naziism, which basically just took the socialist part seriously. It is pretty obscure because Strasser was a terrible leader, but it was a thing.

[Snowy_One]

Tuvarkz already said why Nationalism and Communism are theoretically mutually exclusive, but really? It's useless to ask why Rome didn't fall after Cannae? It very well could have, especially if Hasdrubal had been able to beat Scipio in Spain. Another problem Hannibal faced was a lack of support from Carthage itself. I agree that things happen for a reason generally, but that doesn't mean that was the only thing that could have happened. There are plenty of things in history left up to chance; a big one is genes. If, say, Lincoln's did had fucked his mom in a slightly different manner, Lincoln would have been a completely different person, as his genes would have been altered. There wasn't a reason that his dad fucked his mom the way he did; it was up to chance, and that is why I can't agree with Determinism.

Even a girl Lincoln would have had the beard though.

[Phoenix Wright]

Okay, lets stop this whole determinism thing as at this point it's just parroting opinions at each other. In any case, Socialism meets patriotism is closest to Gregor Strasser's version of Naziism, which basically just took the socialist part seriously. It is pretty obscure because Strasser was a terrible leader, but it was a thing.

i don't see how that was the case. i've provided reasons for why i think those questions are useless, i've provided reasons why determinism isn't contrary to the "idea" of history by taking your example to the extreme and showing that it was ridiculous, and i've at least implied that your reasoning for rejecting determinism in that example was based on ignorance of how both sex and overall biology works. imo i was just about to get a real post from you that might have made sense. but i guess if your response was gonna be, "yeah but it's all chance, bro," then that's fine too.

also, i'm talking about how lenin rationalized the nationalistic pride his russians felt toward their nation. he simply called it something else. it seems much more to me that the marxists, communists, and leninists of the world simply don't like nationalism as opposed to the two ideas not being able to coexist. i don't think you could ever rid people of their pride in their origins. (nationalism doesn't have to be taken to the extreme all the time.)

not to mention that you only had one reply. hardly a "bacl-and-forth."

Edited May 8, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

i don't see how that was the case. i've provided reasons for why i think those questions are useless, i've provided reasons why determinism isn't contrary to the "idea" of history by taking your example to the extreme and showing that it was ridiculous, and i've at least implied that your reasoning for rejecting determinism in that example was based on ignorance of how both sex and overall biology works. imo i was just about to get a real post from you that might have made sense. but i guess if your response was gonna be, "yeah but it's all chance, bro," then that's fine too.

also, i'm talking about how lenin rationalized the nationalistic pride his russians felt toward their nation. he simply called it something else. it seems much more to me that the marxists, communists, and leninists of the world simply don't like nationalism as opposed to the two ideas not being able to coexist. i don't think you could ever rid people of their pride in their origins. (nationalism doesn't have to be taken to the extreme all the time.)

not to mention that you only had one reply. hardly a "bacl-and-forth."

To be honest I feel you were really patronizing me so I didn't want it to get nastier. In any case, Orthodox Marxism is incompatible with Nationalism, but I suppose that if you view Stalinism and Maoism as variations rather than heresies then it isn't necessarily incompatible. But that then gets into a huge and at this point in history irrelevant doctrinal debate about an ideology only really present in Cuba anymore.

[Water Mage]

I've been watching the whole thing for a while a now, when something struck as strange.

Maybe it's just me, but Trump doesn't seem to thinking ahead.

I'm not calling him stupid or anything, but I get the feeling that's oversimplifying things.

I may be wrong, but Trump is coming of as...naive. Very naive. He's reminding me of a starry-eyed newcomer.

Am I off the mark? After all, I admit that I don't have a full understanding of American Politics.

[Person123]

He wouldn't have gotten this far if he wasn't planning ahead.

He applied for a trademark for "Make America Great Again" back in November of 2012, if that tells you anything.

[Water Mage]

He wouldn't have gotten this far if he wasn't planning ahead.

He applied for a trademark for "Make America Great Again" back in November of 2012, if that tells you anything.

I know he obviously planned ahead, but as I said, it feels like he's naive. Like he's not seeing the bigger picture.

Perhaps is his lack of experience?

[Person123]

It's probably more of a marketing thing. It's a lot easier to reach out to a majority of voters with a simpler message.

Considering that the plurality of his support comes from voters without a college degree, it's safe to assume that it's effective.

[Tryhard]

He does love the poorly educated.

[tuvarkz]

I know he obviously planned ahead, but as I said, it feels like he's naive. Like he's not seeing the bigger picture.

Perhaps is his lack of experience?

Eh, he's new as a politician, but he's not new to the field as someone who has been endorsing/funding politicians already. He knows how the things work behind the screens, and has gotten quite a good handle of the politician part of the whole thing.

[Water Mage]

It's probably more of a marketing thing. It's a lot easier to reach out to a majority of voters with a simpler message.

Considering that the plurality of his support comes from voters without a college degree, it's safe to assume that it's effective.

I see, thinking about it, most of his promises are rather simple.

Things like "I'm going to build a wall" or "I'm gonna forbid x people from entering this country", he doesn't seems to explain ideas, or at least, doesn't waste time with details the common people wouldn't understand.

Looking at it, this is a clever way of taking advantage of the poorly-educated and the simple-minded.

His publicity seems smart.

And yet it was that same publicity that made that stupid Cinco de Mayo post. They did not think that one through.

Either way, I may not like the man, but Trump certaintly has the charisma to appeal to the masses.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Water Mage

[eclipse]

His solutions are all immediate solutions. A wall will theoretically stop immigrants physically, but it won't address the underlying problem that's causing mass immigration from Mexico in the first place (which shouldn't be our responsibility, but I wanted to use it as an example). However, if you want to appeal to the reactionary guys, this is how to do it.

[Phoenix Wright]

we'll, let's be more clear than that. his "solutions" are a combination of vague, impractical, stupid, and ridiculous.

trump appeals to those that are xenophobic. one can browse r/thedonald to see it. people post videos and shit that prove nothing, while everyone else says "SEE I TOLD YOU THOSE PEOPLE SUCK"

his entire platform is reliant on the people who view the few differences among us all and consider those different as enemies of the state. ask even anyone here who supports trump, they don't know anything about his platform (or have huge misunderstandings). for example,

why is a flat tax better? i've asked this question several times and got no answer. progressive taxes are mathematically better, regardless of your beliefs.

why is universal healthcare bad? if the government is expected to provide ways to keep you safe (police, firefighters, infrastructure, etc.) i would assume health would be included. not to mention it can be paid for. republicans obviously don't have a problem expanding government powers or increasing spending on things (particular to their interests). i personally see this issue as more than political, anyway.

what's the maximum percentage of income conservatives here are willing to pay in taxes and why?

if the problem isn't mexicans etc, why aren't we championing reform of the process of legalization, as opposed to trying to keep everyone out?

trump cites that gang members and violent crime committers are given a "slap on the wrist." do people actually believe this? we have the highest prison population in the world. doesn't sound like trump is on base at all.

almost everything on his site is garbage or gibberish. i can see only china, guns, and veteran issues as even remotely sound arguments from trump. but even then, he agrees with sanders on trade. on guns, they're almost parallel (sanders wants to ban guns/keep guns banned that are expressly made for killing people). on veteran's issues, they're parallel (because what political platform would be against veterans).

To be honest I feel you were really patronizing me so I didn't want it to get nastier. In any case, Orthodox Marxism is incompatible with Nationalism, but I suppose that if you view Stalinism and Maoism as variations rather than heresies then it isn't necessarily incompatible. But that then gets into a huge and at this point in history irrelevant doctrinal debate about an ideology only really present in Cuba anymore.

well, what about the points i was making? hypothetical questions aren't useful, right? and asking why something didn't happen at some point isn't ever a provocative or insightful question, i think.

i genuinely still don't know what you mean by the lincoln thing.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

we'll, let's be more clear than that. his "solutions" are a combination of vague, impractical, stupid, and ridiculous.

well, what about the points i was making? hypothetical questions aren't useful, right? and asking why something didn't happen at some point isn't ever a provocative or insightful question, i think.

i genuinely still don't know what you mean by the lincoln thing.

I was pointing out the randomness of genetics; for example Lincoln could have been born a girl, which would have basically prevented him from having a career. I find hypotheticals to be useful as prompters of discussion, which can then be used as ways to learn. If you want to see it in action check out Alternate History.com.

[tuvarkz]

Eh, as eclipse said, the wall and mass deportation of illegal immigrants is the best solution available to combat illegal immigration that doesn't outright infringe on Mexico's sovereignity. Similarly, to increase the availability of jobs rather than increasing the minimum wage is a far better solution when you take into account that small-scale businesses (such as a family-owned restaurant) can't survive if there's a significant increase in minimum wage.

Regarding ISIS, I've been on the camp that they need to be made an example of for a good while. There's no pacific way to deal with religious zealots. There's other issues in the Middle East that need fixing, but the US have proven themselves to insofar incompetent when dealing with the aftermath of deposing a regime. Perhaps some protections could be removed so that Putin gets a chance at doing so?

[Balcerzak]

why is a flat tax better? i've asked this question several times and got no answer. progressive taxes are mathematically better, regardless of your beliefs.

why is universal healthcare bad? if the government is expected to provide ways to keep you safe (police, firefighters, infrastructure, etc.) i would assume health would be included. not to mention it can be paid for. republicans obviously don't have a problem expanding government powers or increasing spending on things (particular to their interests). i personally see this issue as more than political, anyway.

what's the maximum percentage of income conservatives here are willing to pay in taxes and why?

if the problem isn't mexicans etc, why aren't we championing reform of the process of legalization, as opposed to trying to keep everyone out?

trump cites that gang members and violent crime committers are given a "slap on the wrist." do people actually believe this? we have the highest prison population in the world. doesn't sound like trump is on base at all.

A flat tax is better because it is fair. I'm extremely confused how you can term a "progressive" tax scheme to be mathematically better. What is your metric for a successful tax implementation?

Government isn't supposed to provide ways to keep you safe. Its purpose is to give you a means of recourse if your rights are violated.

My gut answer is 15%.

I'm actually a proponent of exactly that.

I've never looked into that particular claim.

[Wist]

Asking how a tax system is "mathematically better" is a meaningless question because what's "better" depends completely on your ideology.

I believe society is advantaged when government provides support beyond market facilitation and property rights protection. I'd argue that because prices are not proportional, the real cost of a flat tax is greater for those with less income (assuming equivalent total tax revenue) and government ought not be the cause of such a burden. I can only see suggestions that a flat tax is fair as misleading. But this is a biased (though I think valid) generalization.

You say you see this as more of a political issue. I agree with that. There are of course plenty of economic arguments to be made, but I think it's too reductive to consider those arguments under the umbrella of "mathematically better (or worse)".

Edited May 8, 2016 by Wist

[tuvarkz]

we'll, let's be more clear than that. his "solutions" are a combination of vague, impractical, stupid, and ridiculous.

trump appeals to those that are xenophobic. one can browse r/thedonald to see it. people post videos and shit that prove nothing, while everyone else says "SEE I TOLD YOU THOSE PEOPLE SUCK"

his entire platform is reliant on the people who view the few differences among us all and consider those different as enemies of the state. ask even anyone here who supports trump, they don't know anything about his platform (or have huge misunderstandings). for example,

why is a flat tax better? i've asked this question several times and got no answer. progressive taxes are mathematically better, regardless of your beliefs.

why is universal healthcare bad? if the government is expected to provide ways to keep you safe (police, firefighters, infrastructure, etc.) i would assume health would be included. not to mention it can be paid for. republicans obviously don't have a problem expanding government powers or increasing spending on things (particular to their interests). i personally see this issue as more than political, anyway.

what's the maximum percentage of income conservatives here are willing to pay in taxes and why?

if the problem isn't mexicans etc, why aren't we championing reform of the process of legalization, as opposed to trying to keep everyone out?

trump cites that gang members and violent crime committers are given a "slap on the wrist." do people actually believe this? we have the highest prison population in the world. doesn't sound like trump is on base at all.

almost everything on his site is garbage or gibberish. i can see only china, guns, and veteran issues as even remotely sound arguments from trump. but even then, he agrees with sanders on trade. on guns, they're almost parallel (sanders wants to ban guns/keep guns banned that are expressly made for killing people). on veteran's issues, they're parallel (because what political platform would be against veterans).

Since you edited after my post, I'll answer this.

Fox news source about illegal crime statistics. I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy about those numbers since a) Fox News, and b) They've allegedly gathered these numbers from multiple sources and I'd have to do some extensive research (That I might do later in the week, got a busy couple days if you'll excuse me for it), but breitbart's got a wide collection of data that has gotten a bit beyond the numbers of just annecdotal. It's not just this, but the fact that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes for work they do and that a country must uphold its laws or otherwise said laws don't hold power anymore. If there's rules for immigrants but immigrants can choose to be illegal and suffer only minimal consequences then there's no point to there being immigration laws. (And as a legal immigrant, these things don't take more than 3-4 days of paperwork and 2-3 mornings of standing in a line once a year.)

I won't talk about flat vs progressive tax because I am not entirely certain on how most of the mechanics of that work.

US cops, actually do not have the constitutional duty to keep you safe. While I agree that the American medical system pricing is outright ridiculous, full universal healthcare without seeing the long-term consequences of the investment requirements and without the proper dealing to buy medical products at a sustainable rate (by the state), it won't be entirely viable.

About the US prison statistics, weren't those mostly drugs and minor offences? There's a difference between gang crime/murders getting a slap on the wrist and large amounts of drug consumers/minor law offenders getting arrested.

EDIT: Also, about guns. You think there's guns that weren't designed to kill?

Edited May 9, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Skynstein]

Government isn't supposed to provide ways to keep you safe.

No, no, no, you skipped the basics of social contract as elaborated by Hobbes!

Why would I claim allegiance to any, ANY government, if not to keep me safe? Just look at past dictatorships and any government which actively pursued certain groups. The pursued people no longer viewed those governments as their own, so they fled from/fought against it.

Any form of social expenditure is an investment to further societal development. It's utilitarism at its most basic. If they spend on you, it's because they want to make you useful to the state.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Cerberus87

[Shadow Knight]

A flat tax is better because it is fair. I'm extremely confused how you can term a "progressive" tax scheme to be mathematically better. What is your metric for a successful tax implementation?

Government isn't supposed to provide ways to keep you safe. Its purpose is to give you a means of recourse if your rights are violated.

My gut answer is 15%.

I'm actually a proponent of exactly that.

I've never looked into that particular claim.

I'd go back to a straight sales tax if possible. Simply put even a straight 10% tax requires a government body to enforce it. And as soon as that happens then those that have more money will take advantage of that centralization of power. With a straight sales tax those that have more money and are more likely to spend it will pay more and those who have less money will be forced to save and will pay less. That and there is no avoiding a sales tax unless you want to leave.

[Phoenix Wright]

A flat tax is better because it is fair. I'm extremely confused how you can term a "progressive" tax scheme to be mathematically better. What is your metric for a successful tax implementation?

Government isn't supposed to provide ways to keep you safe. Its purpose is to give you a means of recourse if your rights are violated.

My gut answer is 15%.

I'm actually a proponent of exactly that.

I've never looked into that particular claim.

fair how? because the percentage is the same? what a flat tax does is place a higher burden upon the shoulders of those who cannot carry it. link all things equal--meaning the government wants to keep the same revenue year-to-year--if a flat tax were introduced, the burden would shift from the rich (who we know can pay), to the poor (who we know can't). mathematically, this is unsound. one should not apply stress to an object that cannot withstand the stress applied. this is why i speak similarly for climate change (which i think you're a staunch opponent of for some reason)--the answer is obvious but we turn it into a political issue. wist is correct in saying that the political/economic issue of how much to pay is true (to an extent), but in some ways it is not a political issue. flat taxes are archaic.

a government's job is absolutely to keep you safe. i happen to believe rights are granted by governments, not by nature.

gut answers need not apply. they don't mean anything at all.

i'm happy that you are.

Since you edited after my post, I'll answer this.

Fox news source about illegal crime statistics. I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy about those numbers since a) Fox News, and b) They've allegedly gathered these numbers from multiple sources and I'd have to do some extensive research (That I might do later in the week, got a busy couple days if you'll excuse me for it), but breitbart's got a wide collection of data that has gotten a bit beyond the numbers of just annecdotal. It's not just this, but the fact that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes for work they do and that a country must uphold its laws or otherwise said laws don't hold power anymore. If there's rules for immigrants but immigrants can choose to be illegal and suffer only minimal consequences then there's no point to there being immigration laws. (And as a legal immigrant, these things don't take more than 3-4 days of paperwork and 2-3 mornings of standing in a line once a year.)

I won't talk about flat vs progressive tax because I am not entirely certain on how most of the mechanics of that work.

US cops, actually do not have the constitutional duty to keep you safe. While I agree that the American medical system pricing is outright ridiculous, full universal healthcare without seeing the long-term consequences of the investment requirements and without the proper dealing to buy medical products at a sustainable rate (by the state), it won't be entirely viable.

About the US prison statistics, weren't those mostly drugs and minor offences? There's a difference between gang crime/murders getting a slap on the wrist and large amounts of drug consumers/minor law offenders getting arrested.

EDIT: Also, about guns. You think there's guns that weren't designed to kill?

let's just say there's a lot of them. of course it's drugs and minor offenses, those have higher rates. but people that commit even those crimes are often given harsh sentences, especially if they're men, and especially if they're black men.

not exactly, no. but i think the idea is more of pistol vs m16. or hunting rifle vs aa-12

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, I have to say governments are pretty obviously supposed to keep you safe. The whole reason civilization, and thereby governments, was established is because people decided they'd rather obey rules and be safe than not obey rules and not be safe. And even if rights are granted by nature and not governments, the fuck is nature going to do to protect those rights? Have a hurricane on whoever tries to violate them?

[Alertcircuit]

15% is a lot more to someone who makes $18k than it is to someone who makes $500k. I guess definitions of what is considered "fair" vary, but I'd say it's not fair that Person A is horrified at the idea of seeing a doctor while Person B just has $200k in their bank account instead of $250k

[Irysa]

A Government's job first and foremost isn't to keep people safe, it's to facilitate an environment where everyone is as free as possible. The Government does not grant the rights (literally nothing does), it exists as a means to achieving them.

Note that "free as possible" does not mean "doesn't do anything" because slight restrictions can be observed to increase overall freedom. We are overall more free in a world where you are legally required to get an education for example, as one's overall opportunties in life increase significantly when they have basic reading and writing skills. We are overall more free in a world where violent criminals are incarcerated, as such people restrict everyone else's freedoms.

I believe that making it a legal requirement to educate children means the Government neccessarily must be involved on some level in making sure those facilities are provided (especially to the poor) and maintain good standards. That is not to say the schools must be public services, but just that there is a vested interest. The same goes for healthcare, the Government should have an interest in making sure that everyone has access to Healthcare, because the overall freedom of society goes up if everyone has some kind of healthcare plan. Options are fine, but due to the wildly variable cost of medical treatment, having a publically funded body (even if it is not directly publically controlled) that shoulders the burden of more expensive treatment to me seems like a sensible solution, if only to the less privileged of society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

To summarise: "The poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish"

Edited May 9, 2016 by Irysa