Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

274 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      111
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      43


Recommended Posts

I’m a documented immigrant.

Immigrants, documented or undocumented, do not qualify for most kinds of benefits, period. Medicare and social security are unavailable for documented immigrants until the immigrant has either been present in the US for 40 quarters (so 10 years) or has worked the equivalent of 40 quarters. Additionally most documented immigrants have minimum income requirements placed upon their immigration status (exceptions are asylum seekers and, I believe, lottery card winners). Not sure what the requirements are these days but in 2008 I had to prove I had access to income of at least $37,500/year in order to immigrate.

So, simply, benefits aren’t going to immigrants.

I did qualify for unemployment and FMLA but that was because I had paid directly into those programs through work. I’ve also been paying social security and Medicare taxes since I immigrated but I cannot take advantage of those. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Cons]:   "Immigrants steal good jobs from real Americans."

[Also Cons]:  "Immigrants are a drain on the welfare state" 

If it wasn't 100% clear that anti-immigrant politics is outgroup scapegoating + redirection of anger and frustration away from culpable parties, put those two statements together and consider they really sum up to:

"We don't believe that a menial laborer in our modern economy employed in a good American job can cover basic-costs-of-living and raise a family without dipping into welfare benefits."

Now who's fault is that; hmmm???

The politicians who haven't adjusted minimum wage laws to match the cost-of-living index for decades, and have allowed big business to increase profit margins at the expense of taxpayers by only covering a fraction of their own labor costs + shifting the remainder of the burden onto publicly funded anti-poverty programs?

The private entities buying their votes by means that would in any functional democracy be illegal bribery? (we call it 'lobbying')

The warpigs who keep taking all the money that should be going towards education and domestic services for a healthy, productive workforce and throwing it at military contractors + weapons manufacturers + never-ending for-profit wars?


Nope. Immigration from non-white countries. 

Its [they're] fault that Blue Collar Workers can't get good-paying jobs and are being crushed by bills and taxes--put their kids in cages. 

______


Consider also that this is the exact same divide-and-conquer strategy of keeping the working class divided on racial lines that corrupt businessmen and politicians in this country have been using for like 150 years now, to prevent workers of all ethnicities from realizing that they are being wronged by the same people (i.e. the corrupt businessmen and politicians) and have mutual interests in uniting against them. 

Political cartoons from the 1880s (i.e. peak period of mass Chinese Immigration to California and The West Coast)

Image result for chinese exclusion act cartoon

Image result for chinese exclusion act cartoon

^^^

(if you know anything about our labor laws from this time period + the legal battles around them, you know that this sentiment was being whipped up at a time when progressives reformers of the day were fighting the first generation of post-industrial revolution gazillionaires for things like--child labor bans. Fire escapes and machine guard-rails and such to prevent needless death by industrial accident. The right to strike. The right to form labor units. The right for industry workers to have union representatives negotiate with management on their behalf, and contractually stipulate fair working conditions + rates of pay)

...you know...all that stuff we freaked out and called 'socialism' in one century before embracing as an indispensable part of a well-regulated economic system in the next....

We're again in a period where there's intense popular dissatisfaction with the way we've structured our economy and stacked the deck against the average worker, and intense pushes against entrenched business interests for progressive reform.  

We're again in a a period where there's an intense push from leaders beholden to entrenched business interests to blame immigrants for all our problems + believe that as long as the beholden schmucks are attacking immigrants, they're helping us. 

...not a coincidence... 

They do this every time they're about to get their teeth kicked in by a fed-up working class. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Res said:

I’m a documented immigrant.

Immigrants, documented or undocumented, do not qualify for most kinds of benefits, period. Medicare and social security are unavailable for documented immigrants until the immigrant has either been present in the US for 40 quarters (so 10 years) or has worked the equivalent of 40 quarters. Additionally most documented immigrants have minimum income requirements placed upon their immigration status (exceptions are asylum seekers and, I believe, lottery card winners). Not sure what the requirements are these days but in 2008 I had to prove I had access to income of at least $37,500/year in order to immigrate.

So, simply, benefits aren’t going to immigrants.

I did qualify for unemployment and FMLA but that was because I had paid directly into those programs through work. I’ve also been paying social security and Medicare taxes since I immigrated but I cannot take advantage of those. 

 

Would like to note that a lot of student visas have explicit limits on work when people move here. I have a friend who couldn't make summer rent with a job outside the university because he was only allowed two outside-of-school jobs during his entire school career.

 

Also are Democrats really pro-mass immigration or is mass immigration anything more than the "we're for rich white immigrants from the Nordic countries" view that Trump had that one time.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Also are Democrats really pro-mass immigration or is mass immigration anything more than the "we're for rich white immigrants from the Nordic countries" view that Trump had that one time.......

"OF COURSE Democrats are pro-mass immigration! More Minorities = more votes for their plantation of votes. They've tricked the Blacks into voting for them and now they're trying to add more brown people so that whites no longer have a voice! LBJ said it himself: I'll have those ****ers voting Democratic for 200 years".

Long overdue

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Also are Democrats really pro-mass immigration or is mass immigration anything more than the "we're for rich white immigrants from the Nordic countries" view that Trump had that one time.......

Obama averaged more deportations in his office time compared to Trump. Democrats have consistently been open to ideas on border control if not voting directly in favour of them. I think that's all you really need to know about how this narrative about the Democrats and immigration holds up.

It's not really about the truth, it's about pushing the meter of what's normal to the right. Now Democrats are trying to compromise with the Republicans on perhaps not a wall, but funding to border control nonetheless...

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tryhard said:

Obama averaged more deportations in his office time compared to Trump. Democrats have consistently been open to ideas on border control if not voting directly in favour of them. I think that's all you really need to know about how this narrative about the Democrats and immigration holds up.

yeah ok

i was just making sure i wasn't crazy before i realized that life was posting in this thread again, so i probably am crazy but i'm definitely not misguided

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Also are Democrats really pro-mass immigration or is mass immigration anything more than the "we're for rich white immigrants from the Nordic countries" view that Trump had that one time.......

I am not sure about all Democrats and people who lean left, but I am pro immigration. I hold a romanticized view of American exceptionalism. As the leader of the world, the least we can do for the shit we throw around the world is to open our borders, especially to the persecuted and poor, and even more especially so for those who have bled for us. I find it repulsive that many foreign translators who have risked their lives for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan are stuck behind bureaucratic bullshit and they have difficulty to move to the United States. A lot of them face real risk of persecution and death. Some of these people died for our country, and I think we are honor bound to call any foreigners who sacrificed for our country as fellow Americans and bestow them and their families citizenship if they want it.

150 million people world wide would like to migrate to the United States. While I am not sure if we can absorb that many people at once, I think we should at least try to accept any who are able to physically get to our borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, XRay said:

I am not sure about all Democrats and people who lean left, but I am pro immigration. I hold a romanticized view of American exceptionalism. As the leader of the world, the least we can do for the shit we throw around the world is to open our borders, especially to the persecuted and poor, and even more especially so for those who have bled for us. I find it repulsive that many foreign translators who have risked their lives for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan are stuck behind bureaucratic bullshit and they have difficulty to move to the United States. A lot of them face real risk of persecution and death. Some of these people died for our country, and I think we are honor bound to call any foreigners who sacrificed for our country as fellow Americans and bestow them and their families citizenship if they want it.

150 million people world wide would like to migrate to the United States. While I am not sure if we can absorb that many people at once, I think we should at least try to accept any who are able to physically get to our borders.

...Well at least you have the self awareness to throw "romanticized" in there... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Imagine needing a government watchdog report to tell you that taking screaming toddlers away from all family + emotional support and throwing them in Baby Jail causes mental trauma. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/2/2019 at 12:53 PM, Phoenix Wright said:

Part 1) the problem with your argument is simply that it is all conjecture. your estimations arise from thin air if they're unsourced. what interdimensional observer is asking for, consequently, is a factual framework to argue in favor of immigration.

the thing is, immigration is a nuanced subject. not all immigrants are the same and obviously not all immigration strategies are the same. for the united states, with the largest immigrant population in the world, the numbers tell us that immigration is a net positive--that's great for people like me who are pro-immigration. but, when you ask how certain immigrant populations are doing, you'll get very different stories. moreover, when you ask which cities/regions/states are actually able to support large influxes of immigrants, you'll get vastly different answers. this is why i think the best course of action is a general overview of the facts (read: average effects immigrants have on the country) and then much more research into a specific topic you might be interested in. how mexicans are doing in southern california is much different than how somalis are doing in minnesota.

immigration is not always a good thing. mexico, specifically tijuana, could not actually sustain the recent migrant caravan from central america. their president, more reasonably than ours at least, wants to find a way to settle as many as possible. as nations, mexico and the united states sympathize with asylum seekers (in general, at the moment the current american administration appears wholly xenophobic), but it's simply not always feasible. what hurts these people is the lack of real problem solving because we're busy arguing about things that don't matter, like whether or not immigrants should be let in in the first place.

Part 2) on the topic of college, it's important to note that you might be lazy, but to me it sounds you're being extremely unfair to your peers and yourself. would you make the same arguments if you had to pay for primary school? (k-12.) if a 5th grader had to do extracurriculars to get themselves a sponsor to pay for school but didn't, are they lazy? the point i'm making is that college has rapidly become not a privilege for the elites, but a requirement for most skilled work. because it's a requirement, the onus, like primary school, like police, like firefighters, is on all of us (ie, the government) to fund education, not the individual. and, because of the expense, applying for one or two scholarships will only in rare cases be sufficient to pay for school; prospective students likely will have to apply to dozens. this is on top of school, applications for college, standardized tests, and outside stressors you aren't privy to. i reject your conclusion that your peers are lazy--instead i'd argue the state is putting too much of a burden on young people to pay for their futures.

Part 1) but see, im making the point that it is useless to throw numbers at people who don't even care about the numbers and are simply using that as a reason to reject immigration because the truth is they are quite possibly prejudice against outsiders. It's not an individual's responsibility to educate others on how beneficial immigration can be or is, it falls to them to do that. But they know it's a super complex and nuance problem to solve and they don't have time to understand it all. Do you really think Observer is going to have time in a one on one session teaching another person about basic economic terminology and telling that person about their various sources of information (which they won't go look up or believe) and how at the end of the day, it is beneficial for them to come? I'm very doubtful.

 

Part 2) sorry buddy, but college is not a requirement. I disagree there. The perspective I'm looking at this from is that nobody is entitled to that so called "skilled" work. There is plenty of work to do and money to make unskilled. It might not be favorable and it might even make life a struggle to keep up with (we can talk about inflation and cost living separately and figure out who to point the finger at) but that doesn't mean it's the government's job or responsibility to grant you opportunities to get your dream job. If you want a life of luxury or a lifestyle different from the poor and unskilled, be prepared to make sacrifices for it. In America that naive notion that you can have it your way is what is making us weak in my opinion. Your duty and obligation in life is to be independent. The rest is what you make out of it. This means putting a roof over your own head and stop mooching of the parents. Pay bills and put bacon on the table. I know I could think a little harder and try to put this in a less crude way and make it sound more delicate, but that isn't my style. You want that fancy job sitting in the a/c making good money only using your head (and your hands too i guess. In a dexterous way)? You want a lifestyle where you can eat fancy food, have a piano in your foyer, take vacations around the world? Well buddy, that sounds like a personal problem. Sounds like you "want" something, not "need" something. That "skilled" stuff your talking about that colleges and universities open the door for you, is optional. Its a privilege. A luxury. Not a requirement. You can live working unskilled labor. You just aren't going to be happy or being doing a bunch fun stuff getting the chance to have different experiences in life. Nobody is entitled to those dream jobs or careers they keep reaching for that they have no business aiming for. People need to learn to be more practical. If you want doors opened up for you, then find a way to open them without making others open them for you. It's called hard work, determination, ambition, and being self sufficient. It use to be at least. I dunno what this new generation calls it. By the way, I know how I said all this sounds like I'm aiming it directly at you, but i meant it in general to any individual. Just saying. I'm not aiming at you personally. That is my opinion regarding higher education and what not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Part 2) sorry buddy, but college is not a requirement. I disagree there. The perspective I'm looking at this from is that nobody is entitled to that so called "skilled" work. There is plenty of work to do and money to make unskilled.

Being an unskilled worker isn't going to mean much when your job is replaced by a robot in the future. People are going to need at least trade skills. Perhaps we should have the foresight to prepare the mass populace and encourage learning a profession before the inevitable happens.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Interdimensional Observer @Tediz64 @Phoenix Wright

See...Here's the thing...

We use to have an economy where you could graduate from high school. Go straight into union work or low skilled menial labor. Make minimum wage. And buy a house + pay your bills + raise some kids on that salary, without government handouts or a life of poverty.

Over the past 40 years we've stopped adjusting minimum wage to cost-of-living. Let insurance carriers and credit lenders and mortgage bankers run amok with predatory business models.  And allowed big business to create this economy where if you're making minimum wage in low skilled menial labor: its just expected now that you can't pay your bills and raise a family without government assistance. Cost-of-living is too high and the jobs don't pay enough; public assistance and government welfare has to pick up the slack.

This is the hallmark of a fundamentally rigged and broken economy, where lawmakers have not been responsive to the needs of their people and have structured the rules of the game around the interests of those who wine-and-dine their party leaders and fund their lavish lifestyles with their bribes "donations."

_______


The immigrant is blamed for this, by the culpable politicians, and said to be the reason why Americans in low skilled menial labor are suffering economically.

The culpable politicians attack immigrants, make laws against them, and use the power of federal 'law enforcement' to brutalize them.

The culpable politicians continue to block living wage laws and let predatory business practices run amok, and in so doing continue to fuck low skilled menial labor.

And the low-skilled menial laborers continue to vote for the culpable politicians who keep fucking them, as though they are champions of their best interests, because their prejudices have been exploited and they have been made to believe that the culpable politicians are helping them by brutalizing immigrants.

Thats the gameUnderstand this, and you'll understand everything that they're doing right now. 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Millennials Have Higher College Costs

It’s no secret that the cost of college has been rising. A GOBankingRates analysis found that the annual cost of a four-year public university has soared more than 3,700% between 1964 when the youngest boomers were born, and 2015. So when those boomers entered college at age 18 in 1982, the average annual tuition at a public school in current dollars was $1,031, and the average cost of a private college was $4,639. When the oldest boomers were in college in 1964, the average annual cost of a public school was just $243, and the average annual cost of a private school was $1,088.

^Source

Details like this are ignored in favor of turning regular working folks against each other.

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/21/us/harvard-to-increase-charges-for-tuition-and-board-in-83.html

According to the above, Harvard's tuition, room and board was $10,540 and they announced they would increase it to $12,100

If we're to believe data data using the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, that initial cost of $10,540 before the increase and adjusted for inflation would be $27,4xx while after the increase it would be $31,4xx. Harvard's cost of tuition, room and board today is $67,580, possibly higher

Median cost of rent in 1980 was $308, in 1990 it was $600 and in 2017 it is apparently $1,492

Minimum wages have been $3.10, $3.85, $7.25 in 1980, 1990 and Today respectively.

Today, you'd average $1,261.50 per month or $1,160 per month if you assume 40 hours of work a week and strictly 4 weeks in the month. You're not even making aforementioned $1,492. Today, the rent cost is 118% of what you're making monthly at the minimum wage and that's using the average. My rent is $1.2k in Austin Texas for those finding that $1,492 to be BS or something.

In 1990, you'd average $669.90 per month or $616 per month if you assume 40 hours of work a week and strictly 4 weeks in the month. You barely make it past the aforementioned $600. In 1990, the rent cost is 89.5% of what you're making monthly at the minimum wage and that's using the average.

In 1980, you'd average $539.40 per month or $496 per month if you assume 40 hours of work a week and strictly 4 weeks in the month. You're not too far off from making twice the cost of rent on average. In 1980, the rent cost is 55.6% of what you're making monthly at the minimum wage and that's using the average.

These calculations were done with the intent of favoring the right-wing's talking points against the income inequality issue that's being highlighted today. I hope this illustrates how heavily skewed people's buying power is today compared to what it was in the 80s.

 

On to a different subject...

Trump: I'm taking $60 Million+ Dollars allocated for Kentucky to fund my wall!

McConnel: I blame the damn democrats!

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Over the past 40 years we've stopped adjusting minimum wage to cost-of-living. Let insurance carriers and credit lenders and mortgage bankers run amok with predatory business models.  And allowed big business to create this economy where if you're making minimum wage in low skilled menial labor: its just expected now that you can't pay your bills and raise a family without government assistance. Cost-of-living is too high and the jobs don't pay enough; public assistance and government welfare has to pick up the slack.

Maybe it's cause I'm only taking away from this the concept of "needing help" as opposed to the good intention and point you're making, but that doesn't sit right with me.

How about as an alternative, we just elect fellow hard working blue collar workers who can get into Congress and pass laws to regulate these companies and their profits. Someone who'll say no to being bought out. Someone the people can get behind and know they can hold to a higher moral and ethical standard. In the grander scheme of things, you make it so they can't run around unchecked. Then the cost of living, inflation, etc all that stuff, will go down. This is sounds better because you put an emphasis on the individual not needing "help" and still encourage them to better themselves if they want a different lifestyle.

The tone in your posts imply that you don't seem content with the current climate. The fact that they buy our politicians, that "lobbying" is a thing (which you call it something else), and much more. I think I get where you are coming from. I also think it isn't set up ideally. But I still do like capitalism. It use to symbolize something different untill greedy people took over. Back in the day that attitude was that if you want profits you need a good product/service. Coming up with ways to make the quality better to appeal to customers and take them from other businesses was the way things were done. Either that or find a way to use your resources more wisely to make the same good quality product but cheaper. It's thank to that attitude I feel we got America to where it is at. I would hope I'm not being overly naive and optimistic. But lately I dunno if it is cause I'm more cynical that I don't think that is the case anymore. I feel like business scam more often by giving us products/services that are poor quality but they lie about how good it is and take short cuts making it. I've seen certain industries not even improve or come up with new ideas for at least a generation now. It's the same shit, just different logos and brands. Only phones, games, and computers keep improving. We still got the same old bikes, we still drive automobiles instead of flying or teleporting, still toasters and oven instead of lazer guns that instant cook turkey on Thanksgiving. Still have to manually cut our grass instead of unleashing an outdoor version of a Roomba. Companies are supposed to be motivated to out do each other and compete instead of come up with cheap ploys and tactics listening to their marketing experts who got degrees in psychology and can now trick us better. So long story short, I want capitalism but just not greedy people in charge. 

But I don't want to push the narrative that people need help. Or that they can't do it on their own. That is a toxic attitude in my opinion. I grew up being told if I wanted better, I had to work hard and open those doors for myself. I don't want to raise a kid and tell them, "oh don't worry if you can afford things, they'll raise minimum wage and you can sign up for welfare to cover the difference plus food stamps". What kinda attitude is that? It feeds a sense of entitlement and that they are owed "life". If I didn't do my chores, I missed meals. Maybe I'm just interpreting things wrong when some people talk about the economy and government benefits. I don't think I understand the "intention" behind why people want the government to help. Or that they think the government needs to help.

If anything I think we need to remind these CEOs who their boss is, the customers! They don't set prices, we do! If we say it's too expensive, they better lower it or we are taking our money somewhere else. If they collaborate and set a floor price and we customers still can't afford it, then we send the message that we don't want that product/service. Provided that we aren't talking about something we NEED such as food, gas, clothes, and whatever else is necessary to live, we need to band together. Everytime someone goes behind our back and buys that product/service they send the message that it is still worth that dollar value. That person effectively betrays all of us (the every day consumer).

School tuition is in the same boat. Everytime someone goes and pays them, it tells them they can still find suckers who'll cough up the green for the degree they offer. That person is betraying us consumers. If they can band together and lobby plus buy our politicians, then we can too. Why aren't we more organized? Why is this so hard to understand? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

But I don't want to push the narrative that people need help. Or that they can't do it on their own. That is a toxic attitude in my opinion.

No, the toxic attitude here is to see people who are struggling, saying "... eh, fuck 'em." and doing nothing. People need to learn to do things on their own, but people also need to know that helpless situations aren't as helpless as they seem. It feeds into the dog-eat-dog mentality that got us into this mess where the rich just take everything, and it is very hard for truly disenfranchised people to come to terms with when they're left to do everything alone. The only way to dig your way out of your hole is to bury everyone else.

Back to the rest of the post, your post outlines an ideal that's very close to socialism, even if you're not aware. At least from a SocDem approach. A system where the power is in the hands of the workers and not a small handful at the top, and a system where money just doesn't funnel to the top people, who(And let's be real here) likely aren't working as hard as the people at the bottom. It's the idea unions are based on. Obviously what you're saying is not socialism on its own, since you still seem opposed to extensive government social programs, but it's one of the major components of a foundation-based market system where workers have corporate power... though saying we should elect blue-collar people who know these issues firsthand and should be able to fix them without insane amounts of lobbying money swaying them would probably lead to some very extensive social programs, too.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 7:53 AM, Tediz64 said:

 

Part 1) but see, im making the point that it is useless to throw numbers at people who don't even care about the numbers and are simply using that as a reason to reject immigration because the truth is they are quite possibly prejudice against outsiders. It's not an individual's responsibility to educate others on how beneficial immigration can be or is, it falls to them to do that. But they know it's a super complex and nuance problem to solve and they don't have time to understand it all. Do you really think Observer is going to have time in a one on one session teaching another person about basic economic terminology and telling that person about their various sources of information (which they won't go look up or believe) and how at the end of the day, it is beneficial for them to come? I'm very doubtful.

 

Part 2) sorry buddy, but college is not a requirement. I disagree there. The perspective I'm looking at this from is that nobody is entitled to that so called "skilled" work. There is plenty of work to do and money to make unskilled. It might not be favorable and it might even make life a struggle to keep up with (we can talk about inflation and cost living separately and figure out who to point the finger at) but that doesn't mean it's the government's job or responsibility to grant you opportunities to get your dream job. If you want a life of luxury or a lifestyle different from the poor and unskilled, be prepared to make sacrifices for it. In America that naive notion that you can have it your way is what is making us weak in my opinion. Your duty and obligation in life is to be independent. The rest is what you make out of it. This means putting a roof over your own head and stop mooching of the parents. Pay bills and put bacon on the table. I know I could think a little harder and try to put this in a less crude way and make it sound more delicate, but that isn't my style. You want that fancy job sitting in the a/c making good money only using your head (and your hands too i guess. In a dexterous way)? You want a lifestyle where you can eat fancy food, have a piano in your foyer, take vacations around the world? Well buddy, that sounds like a personal problem. Sounds like you "want" something, not "need" something. That "skilled" stuff your talking about that colleges and universities open the door for you, is optional. Its a privilege. A luxury. Not a requirement. You can live working unskilled labor. You just aren't going to be happy or being doing a bunch fun stuff getting the chance to have different experiences in life. Nobody is entitled to those dream jobs or careers they keep reaching for that they have no business aiming for. People need to learn to be more practical. If you want doors opened up for you, then find a way to open them without making others open them for you. It's called hard work, determination, ambition, and being self sufficient. It use to be at least. I dunno what this new generation calls it. By the way, I know how I said all this sounds like I'm aiming it directly at you, but i meant it in general to any individual. Just saying. I'm not aiming at you personally. That is my opinion regarding higher education and what not.

getting into a conversation with someone you have already assumed will ignore you means you shouldn't have started talking in the first place. it's possible to be anti-immigration for myriad reasons--not just racism and xenophobia. so knowing the facts is helpful in those situations. shoblongoo makes the point that politicians are using immigrants as their scapegoat, etc etc and he's right. but i think if you read my post i'm not even making that sort of argument. what i said i think is still true, immigration is more subtle depending on how deep you'd like to go. if for whatever reason 400,000 people decided to immigrate into san diego, i don't think san diego could handle that (depending on how quickly it happens obviously, and i'm assuming in this instance that it'd be quick). i also said, in general, immigration is a net positive, so this is where shoblongoo's point comes in. in the united states, people who generally disfavor immigration are likely using them as a scapegoat or whatever. i'm aware of that bit, but more nuanced discussions can exist too.

yeah, where? lol. you sound like a boomer--blissfully unaware of the exploitative nature of capitalism with a bs "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Slumber said:

Back to the rest of the post, your post outlines an ideal that's very close to socialism, even if you're not aware. At least from a SocDem approach. A system where the power is in the hands of the workers and not a small handful at the top, and a system where money just doesn't funnel to the top people, who(And let's be real here) likely aren't working as hard as the people at the bottom. It's the idea unions are based on. Obviously what you're saying is not socialism on its own, since you still seem opposed to extensive government social programs, but it's one of the major components of a foundation-based market system where workers have corporate power... though saying we should elect blue-collar people who know these issues firsthand and should be able to fix them without insane amounts of lobbying money swaying them would probably lead to some very extensive social programs, too.

I'd super appreciate an academic source that puts an emphasis on terminology based of history to confirm this. I'm quite shocked to hear that my "ideal" is similar in appearance to socialism. Especially considering what impression and understanding I'm have when it comes to defining socialism. I thought my idea of how things should operate more closely resemble a republic state using capitalism. Btw, just so a future misunderstanding isn't created as a result, I'm not favor of this platform I'm currently discussing. This is more or less me trying to be practical and compromise with others to something that in theory, should be fair. I would like to say that I try as often as I can to meet people 50/50 as long as we keep empathy out it. I think it's impossible to make everyone happy so keeping things neutral sounds like the more ethical way to go about making decisions that affect millions.

Your statement about the dog eat dog mentality is actually spot on in how I would prefer we run things in the world. @Life echoed a thought I agree with. People who don't serve in the military don't truly understand the value of life or the concept of how might makes right. You can espouse ideals and morals all you want, but a moral compass isn't going to protect you from someone who has intentions of killing you. Other people have their own way of life that they aren't going to simply give up or leave behind because you are "taking the moral high ground". Within your borders your safe and can believe what you want, but outside of them it becomes a battle. I'm bring this up cause I really believe many people don't understand how far other people are willing to go for their own country and their own way of life. People need to learn to be stronger. It's either that or you be friends with someone who is strong. If you keep trying to wipe out the people who live by the creed or philosophy "dog eat dog" world, you only did that within your own borders to your own people. You didn't do that to the outside people. And believe me, they will get stronger while we get weaker and our position as one of the 3 super powers on Earth will be a thing of the past. In class called lifespan growth and development, you'll learn about a concept called object permanence that happens when you are under the age of 5. You know just because you don't see it anymore, doesn't mean it stopped existing. How that relates is this: Threats exist and just cause you don't perceive them, doesn't mean they won't hurt you. Let some people be strong and live by the philosophy "it's kill or be killed", because you're going to want them as your friends when our enemies come. People like me do what we can to negotiate and compromise and all I'm asking is let us keep the system running in a way that doesn't put an emphasis on sending the message people need help in order to make it or to get by. That will have nasty consequences. But I digress. Back to the school stuff and immigration. 

15 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

getting into a conversation with someone you have already assumed will ignore you means you shouldn't have started talking in the first place. it's possible to be anti-immigration for myriad reasons--not just racism and xenophobia. so knowing the facts is helpful in those situations. shoblongoo makes the point that politicians are using immigrants as their scapegoat, etc etc and he's right. but i think if you read my post i'm not even making that sort of argument. what i said i think is still true, immigration is more subtle depending on how deep you'd like to go. if for whatever reason 400,000 people decided to immigrate into san diego, i don't think san diego could handle that (depending on how quickly it happens obviously, and i'm assuming in this instance that it'd be quick). i also said, in general, immigration is a net positive, so this is where shoblongoo's point comes in. in the united states, people who generally disfavor immigration are likely using them as a scapegoat or whatever. i'm aware of that bit, but more nuanced discussions can exist too.

yeah, where? lol. you sound like a boomer--blissfully unaware of the exploitative nature of capitalism with a bs "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality.

I think I get what you are mean now and how shob's point ties in. I guess I felt Obsever's time was better spent not trying to get across to someone that can't even be influenced to begin with. And I feel most people against immigration are like that. Just bias I guess. 

But to correct you, I'm not a boomer. I'm a millennial. Plus I am aware of how exploitative CEOs can be. But who said we had be their victims and take it like a little girl? Do you just let bullies punch you and smile? No, you punch back! Learn how to exploit CEOs and hit'em where it hurts. Their profits and revenue. What's with that victim mentality? I said it earlier but I'll rephrase it again, taking the higher moral ground or using a moral compass isn't going protect you from someone bigger and stronger who wants it their way. Might makes right. You want those business to stop taking advantage of minorities and disenfranchised people? Then those people better make them stop. Nobody else is going to do it for them. I'm not advocating violence, don't misunderstand. I'm just saying, rally together behind a leader and do something about it. What I will say is though, the correct answer is most certainly NOT to ask the government for help and support while you stay a victim of those CEOs for the rest of your life. Maybe I'm coming across wrong? Do you get me? Again, I'm not saying let's get violent with each other and our own countrymen, but do you get how I'm saying fight back? Elect leaders who'll pass laws to enforce regulations on this companies so they can't get away with those predatory practices. I mean they still have to make profits since that is their motive for staying in business, and their business is what gives us our products/service that we happily consume, but we can pass laws making it so they make stuff more readily available to all consumers fairly. The unions can do their part to protect employees from being taken advantage of. I'm pretty sure we have laws in place (and if we don't we can pass them), but we just need these businesses to stop hiring lawyers that help them distract us. That plus the judges who turn and look the other way. What about this fight is so hard to win? Let's get some good people in the legal profession who won't get bought out and some good judges voted in to look out for the little guy. The fight seems easy to win in theory. 

(Goes back and rereads before hitting submit:. I think my point is pretty clear. I hope....)

Edited by Tediz64
Trying to fix typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to shovel a might makes right argument, lol. That's the attitude hardened criminals and other malcontents have, and they're rightly shunned, ignored, marginalized and kept down by society at large. Take your dysfunctional, antisocial garbage somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

If you really want to shovel a might makes right argument, lol. That's the attitude hardened criminals and other malcontents have, and they're rightly shunned, ignored, marginalized and kept down by society at large. Take your dysfunctional, antisocial garbage somewhere else.

How about, like, everywhere in the Middle East?

That is generally the thought process here and we are effectively barbarians (the "we" is everyone in the region with us Israelis being only slightly more civilized than our neighbours but not much).

Western bourgeoises don't apply here and that is what you sound like, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually know what bourgeois means or did you learn the definition from the same place where you picked up the term "race communist"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

If you really want to shovel a might makes right argument, lol. That's the attitude hardened criminals and other malcontents have, and they're rightly shunned, ignored, marginalized and kept down by society at large. Take your dysfunctional, antisocial garbage somewhere else.

I won't stoop down to your level where I trade insults or belittle another for their beliefs. This thread and its location is for serious discussion and debate, not petty name calling and hate. You need to look at your actions and reflect on what you've said. That was disrespectful and uncalled for. If you're not willing to discuss solutions or different perspectives to look at problems from in order to better bring more people to the table so we can collectively agree on how to move forward, then you need to leave this form. @Excellen Browning

If at that time when I phrased the part metaphorically of getting punched like a girl and taking it, offended you, then I apologize. It was supposed to be an analogy for the behavior and it's similarities to how people conduct themselves when pointing fingers expecting that after you've identified a bully, everything will get better because the expectation will follow that the now called out bully will apologize and make amends. But that is not how reality works or how things in life will go. On the other hand, there is no need for you to claim I'm dysfunctional or antisocial. That was counter productive to any form of debate or constructive feedback and shuts a conversation down from any progress. Let's be adults and try to fix this without being immature. 

(Edit: added in paragraph) I want to discuss the merits of your accusation. On what grounds can you even make these assertions? When did you have the opportunity to sit down and talk with antisocial, dysfunctional, or hardened criminals all the finer points of philosophy and economics? When did you discuss styles of government, leadership, and actually addressing real threats to our country? Do you have a Bachelor's or Masters in Criminology? Did you study this in-depth with peer-reviewed papers  critically analyzing then subsequently write a thesis in a graduate paper on this content? Hm? Or are you simply upset because I'm sensible, educated, presenting real solutions but don't agree with your political views? 

Edited by Tediz64
Wanted to add a paragraph that would encourage the beginning of a constructive debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 12:37 AM, Tediz64 said:

But I still do like capitalism. 

I like well-regulated capitalism.

Classic capitalist theory recognizes that a "negative externality" is a public harm that a private business will not avoid when driven purely by profit-motive, and further recognizes that the proper role of government in a well-regulated capitalist system is to use force-of-law to correct negative externalities.

Thats the kind of capitalism I like.

 

On 9/7/2019 at 12:37 AM, Tediz64 said:

But I don't want to push the narrative that people need help. Or that they can't do it on their own. That is a toxic attitude in my opinion. I grew up being told if I wanted better, I had to work hard and open those doors for myself. I don't want to raise a kid and tell them, "oh don't worry if you can afford things, they'll raise minimum wage and you can sign up for welfare to cover the difference plus food stamps". What kinda attitude is that?

...odd way to conceptualize the issue...

Like lets look at the classic negative externality used in every economics textbook: environmental damage.

Imagine looking at a law which makes it illegal for factories to dump untreated toxic waste into the general water supply and thinking what kind of weaklings are we raising here? I'm not gonna teach my kids that they need the governments help to not get poisoned--they gonna learn how to boil and pasteurize.  If they want clean water, they can open that door on their own.  

Living Wage laws in a well-regulated capitalist system should be viewed as no different than environmental protection; government stepping in to correct a negative externality. 

Its less about "helping people," if you have some moral aversion to the concept, and more about preventing the infliction of harm. (i.e. the basic function of law)

The prevailing wage for low-skilled menial labor in any given country being lower than the baseline cost-of-living is a social harm, of a kind that government has a necessary and proper role in using the law to remedy.
 

On 9/7/2019 at 12:37 AM, Tediz64 said:

How about as an alternative, we just elect fellow hard working blue collar workers who can get into Congress and pass laws to regulate these companies and their profits. Someone who'll say no to being bought out. 


lol we did that--for the first time in a long time--by electing A.O.C.

And The Right won't stop whining that we sent a bartender to Congress.  (goddamn right we sent a bartender to Congress)

We should kick out the Pelosi's and the McConnell's send more bartenders to Congress. 🍻🍻🍻

________

...specifically in response to your whole might-makes-right theory of social order....

That is the structure of society as it exists in a lawless, anarchistic state. 

The whole reason we over the course of human events developed the concept of  'law' was to elevate ourselves from that state.  

Law exists to make the human condition less brutish and more prosperous than it would be in its absence. "Law enforcement"  is said to be a good thing and the work that law enforcement professionals do is said to be praiseworthy because the function of law is to make the the human condition less brutish and more prosperous than it would be in its absence. 

If a social order built on law and law enforcement is simply a society of might-makes-right where the law exists only to formally codify that concept, than why even bother with laws and law enforcement in the first place?

What then is the purpose of law? 
  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I won't stoop down to your level where I trade insults or belittle another for their beliefs. This thread and its location is for serious discussion and debate, not petty name calling and hate. You need to look at your actions and reflect on what you've said. That was disrespectful and uncalled for. If you're not willing to discuss solutions or different perspectives to look at problems from in order to better bring more people to the table so we can collectively agree on how to move forward, then you need to leave this form. @Excellen Browning

If at that time when I phrased the part metaphorically of getting punched like a girl and taking it, offended you, then I apologize. It was supposed to be an analogy for the behavior and it's similarities to how people conduct themselves when pointing fingers expecting that after you've identified a bully, everything will get better because the expectation will follow that the now called out bully will apologize and make amends. But that is not how reality works or how things in life will go. On the other hand, there is no need for you to claim I'm dysfunctional or antisocial. That was counter productive to any form of debate or constructive feedback and shuts a conversation down from any progress. Let's be adults and try to fix this without being immature. 

(Edit: added in paragraph) I want to discuss the merits of your accusation. On what grounds can you even make these assertions? When did you have the opportunity to sit down and talk with antisocial, dysfunctional, or hardened criminals all the finer points of philosophy and economics? When did you discuss styles of government, leadership, and actually addressing real threats to our country? Do you have a Bachelor's or Masters in Criminology? Did you study this in-depth with peer-reviewed papers  critically analyzing then subsequently write a thesis in a graduate paper on this content? Hm? Or are you simply upset because I'm sensible, educated, presenting real solutions but don't agree with your political views? 

I'll belittle your beliefs because your beliefs are at least 300 years out of date, if not several hundred thousand and obviously unworkable.

Share this post


Link to post
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...