Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

i'm not too clear on how the current syrian policy is a disaster

Anything associated with Syria is generally a disaster.

I really think that the US needs to reprioritize the Middle East again. There are countries worth dealing with for economic reasons (Israel, Jordan, Turkey, SA...) and countries that shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq...) because they can't bring anything to the table. The problem started a long time ago when the US believed that it could solve every problem in this region, not understanding that this shit is built on religious intolerance and hate which spans fucking centuries.

Edited by Jim Moriarty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i'm not too clear on how the current syrian policy is a disaster

Our plan to arm and support "moderate" Syrian opposition was a disaster. The FSA has pretty much been eclipsed by the Al-Nusra front and al-Qaeda. None of them can be trusted.

The Kurds are only interested in fighting ISIS, and would be open to working with the Syrian government.

Russia's intervention has allowed the Syrian government to make serious gains.

Leaving al-Assad in charge is the best option for stability, especially since his government has been protective of minorities like the Alawites and other Shia groups. Sunni Islamist rebels would not do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a serious question.

Why not just let them all fight and kill each other?

EDIT: Just so you understand, this is my view on the matter and it echoes a lot of Israeli thoughts. If they're killing each other, then they're not killing us. It's really that simple. We can deal with the fallout afterwards but for right now, there's no reason to back a horse.

Edited by Jim Moriarty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Bloomberg, yeah he'd likely sap votes from the Democratic candidate; particularly in New York. Bloomberg is incredibly strict on stuff like gun control, so no Republican would vote for him.

Heck, Bloomberg could probably take New York, and that would definitely hurt the Democrats.

idk, nyc =/= ny, the rest of the state is still pretty big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see what pressure the US can put upon other Middle Eastern countries outside of outright threatening to group them alongside ISIS as enemies of the country (Which would just give the US another country to liberate), and trade restrictions aren't likely to work against the Middle Eastern countries of authoritarian government-the ruling group likely has more than enough money to not give a damn.

Carpet bombing 1) works if you do it extensively enough, and 2) leaves a very clear message, 3) does not damage any of the US's relationships (Which putting pressure is likely to do).

If the clear message is that you should just join ISIS now that your family is dead, sure.

If pressuring other countries doesn't work, fine, but it's worth attempting before we fuck up the Middle East for the billionth time, while countries actually there don't do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm not too clear on how the current syrian policy is a disaster

Regardless of our intentions we have managed to give arms to extreme groups. We do this with the hopes that regime change will bring about... what, precisely? Pluralism and democracy? That seems very unlikely. It's becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a scenario where the removal of Assad leads to an improvement of any kind.

Here's a serious question.

Why not just let them all fight and kill each other?

EDIT: Just so you understand, this is my view on the matter and it echoes a lot of Israeli thoughts. If they're killing each other, then they're not killing us. It's really that simple. We can deal with the fallout afterwards but for right now, there's no reason to back a horse.

Who are you referring to? Extremists in Gaza (and their patrons) will continue attempting to murder your people regardless of the violence happening in Syria or elsewhere. Neither of our countries have the luxury of ignoring Islamism.

Edited by Duff Ostrich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a serious question.

Why not just let them all fight and kill each other?

EDIT: Just so you understand, this is my view on the matter and it echoes a lot of Israeli thoughts. If they're killing each other, then they're not killing us. It's really that simple. We can deal with the fallout afterwards but for right now, there's no reason to back a horse.

Well, the Paris attacks show that Daesh aren't just targeting the Middle East.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are you referring to? Extremists in Gaza (and their patrons) will continue attempting to murder your people regardless of the violence happening in Syria or elsewhere. Neither of our countries have the luxury of ignoring Islamism.

Syria and Hezbollah are great examples. With most of Syria's personal money being funneled into trying to win a bloody civil war, less goes to Hezbollah which means less rockets and attacks from the north. Gaza isn't the only area that hates us. Same idea with Egypt and funneling weapons through tunnels into Gaza (but Egypt's recently been doing our dirty work for us by flooding tunnels).

If the Middle East is in crisis mode without involving Israel as the main conflict, it's good for us since we take less heat and deal with fewer problems. That's a lot better than being surrounded by stable and hostile nations.

As for Paris, you can equate it to 9/11. Sure, the attacks were on Western soil. But they are a few isolated attacks that haven't been repeated on a daily basis. If you live with the understanding that you can (and probably will) be attacked on any given day, suddenly Arabs killing Arabs isn't such a bad thing because you're the alternative. The Middle East has always been volatile, especially since the 1930's (you can even look backwards to the middle of WWI when the Armenian Genocide was going on in the Ottoman Empire). The only difference is that in today's age of technology, it can affect countries outside of the region ​if those countries allow it to.

Edited by Jim Moriarty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing literally nothing/adopting the most hands-off position on the Syrian crisis possible would be accepting the source of the refugee crisis, along with its current destabilizing effects on the region and elsewhere.

Which is technically an option, but...

Some of those neighboring countries, like Jordan, would love for the U.S. to back a horse, to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time a US intervention has actually improved the situation in a country? Contrary to what people in this thread have said Obama's current middle eastern policies are quite reasonable and far better than what every other candidate except maybe Rand Paul have to offer. Beyond not taking too much action in Syria and Iraq this also includes the very pragmatic new approach towards Iran which will be very an important factor for the longterm stability of the region.

People need to realize that Daesh is mostly the result of the failed foreign policies of the USA and the EU as well as their problematic relationships with Saudi-Arabia. It's no surprise that a majority of people in Iraq and Syria believe that Daesh is a western invention - after all, it is ... in a certain way. If there actually were interest from the western side in wiping out Daesh they could've done so during the last 5 years. Obama, Paul and everybody else who claims it's better for the US to stay out of the conflict [this includes Sanders I believe?] are a lot more truthful and trustworthy than those that call for a military intervention. Leave that up to the russians. They're doing a better job at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanders is anti-intervention, definitely more so than Obama.

What ISIS? A succesful carpet bomb will mean there will be no ISIS left to join.

And the Middle East is pretty fucked already.

Nah, Daesh will always exist in some capability no matter how much you bomb the region. You may be able to take down mass strongholds, but it won't get rid of the organization. This is the same dumbass logic that lead to the disaster in Afghanistan - Taliban didn't just seize to exist. This isn't even getting into the disgusting implications that it's okay to arbitrarily kill people in the Middle East under the futile hope that it will successfully root out insurgencies and ideologies.

That the Middle East is fucked up doesn't mean it can't get worse. Seems like you haven't learned much from history.

Edited by Radiant head
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how relevant it is to the current discussion, but replying in regards to the OP, my thoughts on the race is that it is shaping up to be a Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump general election. I'm not a huge fan of either--actually, just not a fan at all--but, that seems to be the inclination.

It's still relatively too early in the primaries to say anything, though. Last election this time around, Santorum was in the lead for the GOP and Bachmann was in the lead in the straw poll in Iowa, but Romney took that nomination eventually. The election before, McCain's run was looking to be a joke about this time and Obama was a nobody (and everyone thought Clinton and this other guy was the two likely candidates for election).

Poll numbers are very hard to trust, because they do not represent the millenial generation. How many of us have our own place with a landline? That's the primary function when polling on these official news stations in the mainstream media. When doing internet-related polls, numbers are clearly very, very different. I personally support Rand Paul and will vote for him in the primary, but if he doesn't make it into the general election, I am definitely voting for Gary Johnson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time a US intervention has actually improved the situation in a country? Contrary to what people in this thread have said Obama's current middle eastern policies are quite reasonable and far better than what every other candidate except maybe Rand Paul have to offer. Beyond not taking too much action in Syria and Iraq this also includes the very pragmatic new approach towards Iran which will be very an important factor for the longterm stability of the region.

People need to realize that Daesh is mostly the result of the failed foreign policies of the USA and the EU as well as their problematic relationships with Saudi-Arabia. It's no surprise that a majority of people in Iraq and Syria believe that Daesh is a western invention - after all, it is ... in a certain way. If there actually were interest from the western side in wiping out Daesh they could've done so during the last 5 years. Obama, Paul and everybody else who claims it's better for the US to stay out of the conflict [this includes Sanders I believe?] are a lot more truthful and trustworthy than those that call for a military intervention. Leave that up to the russians. They're doing a better job at it.

I personally blame the Lords Appellant. Basically everything bad that happened after 1400 was probably their fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how relevant it is to the current discussion, but replying in regards to the OP, my thoughts on the race is that it is shaping up to be a Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump general election. I'm not a huge fan of either--actually, just not a fan at all--but, that seems to be the inclination.

It's still relatively too early in the primaries to say anything, though. Last election this time around, Santorum was in the lead for the GOP and Bachmann was in the lead in the straw poll in Iowa, but Romney took that nomination eventually. The election before, McCain's run was looking to be a joke about this time and Obama was a nobody (and everyone thought Clinton and this other guy was the two likely candidates for election).

Poll numbers are very hard to trust, because they do not represent the millenial generation. How many of us have our own place with a landline? That's the primary function when polling on these official news stations in the mainstream media. When doing internet-related polls, numbers are clearly very, very different. I personally support Rand Paul and will vote for him in the primary, but if he doesn't make it into the general election, I am definitely voting for Gary Johnson.

mathematically, a flat tax hurts the middle and lower income levels more than upper income levels. that anyone supports a flat tax is baffling to me. well, at least with respect to those that aren't filthy rich. link. i'm sure there are more unbiased, mathematically more telling links that get the point across better, but this does it well enough. flat taxes are unfair and bad.

libertarian but doesn't believe that a woman has the right to choose to abort. moreso, doesn't think clinics should be govt. funded. this is asking needlessly for risky at-home procedures to occur, even if at a low rate.

agrees with discriminatory policies such as the indiana religious freedom restoration act. link. what if every privately-owned grocery store in the united states refused service to a certain group--should they begin to hunt for food? (eg, whites, homosexuals, middle-eastern people etc.) discrimination based on race, religion, class, gender, and sexuality are simply wrong.

he's not all bad, taken on a case-by-case basis, but many of his views on discrimination policy are very dangerous. i'm sure sure im gei is well versed in the anti-paul discussion, so i suppose i can let him add what he wants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul <--many things in there are flat-out wrong, but i don't have time to find proper sources because i'm lazy

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that religion is more of an ideology and set of moral values, I don't think it should be amongst categories that you can't decide on (Namely race, gender and sexuality; and class to a more-or-less limited degree-Generally what is accesible to poorer people is more determined by the price of things). A good example of this is Scientology.

Also, as far as I've known, shops already can ask disrupting customers to leave their establishment-I could very easily see a law that enforced the owners of a private business to attend everyone ending up with quite catastrophic results. ((And then, if every single shop in the relatively nearby area was to refuse service to a single category of people, I guess that would be a quite clear sign of what the people want-And there would always be someone willing to exploit that opportunity for a monopoly, after all.)).

Edited by tuvarkz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that religion is more of an ideology and set of moral values, I don't think it should be amongst categories that you can't decide on (Namely race, gender and sexuality; and class to a more-or-less limited degree-Generally what is accesible to poorer people is more determined by the price of things). A good example of this is Scientology.

Also, as far as I've known, shops already can ask disrupting customers to leave their establishment-I could very easily see a law that enforced the owners of a private business to attend everyone ending up with quite catastrophic results. ((And then, if every single shop in the relatively nearby area was to refuse service to a single category of people, I guess that would be a quite clear sign of what the people want-And there would always be someone willing to exploit that opportunity for a monopoly, after all.)).

and i'm more thinking that one should not be able to discriminate based off of those differences. mcdonald's should not be able to refuse muslims because they are muslims. i don't see where you're going with scientology.

where in "discrimination based on race, religion, class, gender, and sexuality are simply wrong," do you see my support for businesses not being able to refuse service at all? come on dude.

i don't care what they want. the state shouldn't care what they want because it's irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private business can refuse service to someone based off their sexuality, provided there are no laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexuality. However, only religious institutions in particular should be not be forced to cater to something they don't agree with. If a church doesn't want to perform a gay wedding, or a wedding cake baker doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, they are legally allowed to deny service.

Someone like Kim Davis can't get away with refusing service, since she works for the government, which is strictly secular.

Now, apparently it is possible for a private enterprise to refuse service based off someone's religion.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/28/muslim-free-zone-florida-gun-shop-owner-andy-hallinan-wins-discrimination-lawsuit-against

The judge cited protection by the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as no one being physically injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and i'm more thinking that one should not be able to discriminate based off of those differences. mcdonald's should not be able to refuse muslims because they are muslims. i don't see where you're going with scientology.

where in "discrimination based on race, religion, class, gender, and sexuality are simply wrong," do you see my support for businesses not being able to refuse service at all? come on dude.

i don't care what they want. the state shouldn't care what they want because it's irrelevant.

The point of scientology is that you can tell a lot about a person if they follow that creed, and it being a personal choice of their own, derives into the point that you can figure out things about people from the religion they say to adhere to even if you don't know much more about them-which is a completely different situation than with race, class, gender or sexuality (Which by themselves say nothing else about that person). Thus, religion shouldn't really be placed in the same group as the other four, in my opinion.

Also, I never stated that you supported businesses not being able to refuse anyone at all, but that a law supporting what you support could very easily be misinterpreted or written in such a manner, or have similar end results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll address each point individually:

mathematically, a flat tax hurts the middle and lower income levels more than upper income levels. that anyone supports a flat tax is baffling to me. well, at least with respect to those that aren't filthy rich. link. i'm sure there are more unbiased, mathematically more telling links that get the point across better, but this does it well enough. flat taxes are unfair and bad.

I'm not sure what mathematics you are using, but statistically, a flat tax is the most fair and balanced tax there is for many reasons.

First: The rich would be hurt the MOST by the flat tax. On the surface, yes, the highest brackets are taxed at a greater percentage than the lower tax brackets, this much is fact. However, with our convoluted tax code, people who make the most money also abuse tax loopholes, deductions, and the like to lower their tax obligation. This was a big issue a few years ago when left-winged liberal business owner and economic "guru" Warren Buffet claimed that many rich individuals and businesses were abusing tax laws to the point that they actually paid, percentage-wise, LESS than the middle class. This is because there are so many ways to reduce tax responsibility that are available to the super-rich that the lesser income people have no access to. A flat tax would actually harm these people more than help, because they would officially have no loopholes or deductions to hide from. Ergo, logically, it is fair to say that compared to the current tax code, a flat tax IS more fair.

Second: If you had read Rand Paul's tax plan (which you can google), you would see that he does include a standard deduction in his tax plan. According to his plan, a family of four will have a standard deduction of up to the first $50,000 of the household income. In the current tax plan that we have, a couple filing jointly only has a standard deduction of $12,600. That is an inequality of $37,400, where families between the incomes of $12,601-$49,999 would have a tax obligation whereas in Rand's flat tax plan, these people would not.

Third: Rand's flat tax is a flat out 14.5% tax rate. The current tax brackets have a household who has more than $17,850 in taxable income, which is an annual household income of $12,000+$17,850 or $39,850, paying a 15% tax rate. Might I repeat that a household who makes $39,850 in Rand's flat-tax plan would have zero tax obligation, rather than having to pay almost $3,000 in taxes in the current plan.

Fourth: Rand's flat tax plan would eliminate other miscellaneous taxes. Using a personal anecdote as an example (and not as a statement of fact), my income is a perfect example. In the 2014 tax year, I made roughly $27,000. After applying the $12,000 standard deduction, my taxable income was $15,000. On the surface, the tax plan says I would only have to pay 10% in taxes, or $1,500. However, this ignores the fine nuance of my tax return (and I can guarantee other people/families have similar nuances). Part of my income come from dividends from mutual funds (taxed at 35%), capital gains from selling and re-investing stocks (also taxed at 35%), interest paid from my savings accounts (not sure of the tax rate on this, but I think it's taxed similarly to dividends), and self-employed contractor income. The contractor income was about $1,200... and of that amount, about $350 of that was taxed (good rule of thumb is that if you're middle class and self-employed, you're actually paying somewhere around 40% in taxes, not 15%). Self-employed people have to pay a payroll tax on top of their income tax obligation. I'm not exactly sure what my tax obligation was last year, but someone such as myself last year would have had absolutely ZERO tax obligation in Rand's tax plan.

In summation, it is safe to say that a flat tax like the one Rand Paul proposed is MUCH more effective than the current tax plan. In addition, I skimmed the link you provided. Normally, I would have been skeptical, because Daily Kos is about as reliable as Huffington Post in publishing unbiased articles (read: they're not). As I skimmed the article, I find that many of the points that make Rand Paul's tax plan more efficient is actually outlined in the Daily Kos article. Yes, there is a wealth inequality, but the flat tax is FAR superior to the archaic and convoluted tax code we have now in making sure people are paying their fair share.

libertarian but doesn't believe that a woman has the right to choose to abort. moreso, doesn't think clinics should be govt. funded. this is asking needlessly for risky at-home procedures to occur, even if at a low rate.

Clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, should not be funded by federal funding. Aside from the controversial leaked video of the members of the organization speaking of the fate of aborted fetuses, Planned Parenthood is registered as a tax-free 501c-3 not-for-profit organization. This becomes an issue, because Planned Parenthood does make profit from the services they provide since they do not provide all their services for free.

Also, Rand is similar to his father in the abortion debate. He personally is pro-life, but like Ron Paul, he respects the fact that it is not his choice to legislate morality on a federal level and believes it is up to the states and the individual whether an abortion can be done or not. Beliefs in any direction should never be legislated, because something as relative as morality and ethics should not be clad in the concrete absolutes that we have as the nation's law.

agrees with discriminatory policies such as the indiana religious freedom restoration act. link. what if every privately-owned grocery store in the united states refused service to a certain group--should they begin to hunt for food? (eg, whites, homosexuals, middle-eastern people etc.) discrimination based on race, religion, class, gender, and sexuality are simply wrong.

Grocery stores can and SHOULD have every right to discriminate in any way they want. This applies to any business that is not government service. They are not public sector; they are private sector. If you do not agree with the business's practice, simply do not patronize the business and go somewhere else. I disagree with a company's businesses practice, but I respect a company's choice to run a business how they wish. I do not condone the ethics that Wal-Mart employs in treating their employees; therefore, I never shop at Wal-Mart and do my business elsewhere.

A famous example that happened would be Geno's cheesesteaks in Philadelphia (famous in the area and to a lesser degree in the rest of the country for having an eternal rivalry with Pat's Cheesesteaks for having the best cheesesteak in Philadelphia). After 9/11, Geno's refused service to Muslim customers in retaliation for the attack on the Twin Towers. This controversial practice made national headlines and many people condemned the business for their xenophobic actions. The result? Many people who went to patronize Philly for their cheesesteaks went to their big competition across the street, Pat's Cheesesteaks. Geno's lost a great deal of business over their unpopular business practice. This type of free market philosophy in allowing the consumer to choose where to go and naturally let the bad businesses flounder and potentially die is a prime example of why a business should be allowed to perform whatever practice they wish.

EDIT: Creepy that this post is post #666...

Edited by FoxwolfJackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are please don`t let Trump win as that man is bad news all the way through but he seems to be leading?? in something right now and that ain`t good. I would honestly be happy with anyone at this point being president that is not him just keep him out.

But I am honestly not sure who I will vote for this year will be my first ever time voting as I have recently become old enough to do it. I am keeping a close eye on that Sanders guy and Hilary though so maybe one of those two?? I dunno who I`ll go with... anyone but Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are please don`t let Trump win as that man is bad news all the way through but he seems to be leading?? in something right now and that ain`t good. I would honestly be happy with anyone at this point being president that is not him just keep him out.

But I am honestly not sure who I will vote for this year will be my first ever time voting as I have recently become old enough to do it. I am keeping a close eye on that Sanders guy and Hilary though so maybe one of those two?? I dunno who I`ll go with... anyone but Trump.

Here's what you can do, if you're old enough to vote:

1. Keep an eye on the GOP. Figure out who's the most likely guy NOT named Trump to get in.

2. Register Republican during the primary election.

3. Vote Other Guy.

Seriously thinking about doing this, and letting the Democratic party sort themselves out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what you can do, if you're old enough to vote:

1. Keep an eye on the GOP. Figure out who's the most likely guy NOT named Trump to get in.

2. Register Republican during the primary election.

3. Vote Other Guy.

Seriously thinking about doing this, and letting the Democratic party sort themselves out.

Really unlikely to change the results-Cruz is one legal ruling away from being an invalid runner for President (and regardless of the ruling, his poll value has stopped increasing), and Rubio is too far behind-The most favorable polling for Cruz and Rubio leaves them at 13 and 20 percent behind Trump. No poll is giving Cruz the win on the Iowa caucus this monday, and after that it's gonna be a Trump rollercoaster to nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...