Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

326 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      105
    • No
      135
    • Maybe
      86
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      66
    • No
      135
    • Indifferent
      54


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Johann said:

I'd argue the entire HUD needs to be rebuilt from the ground up since the problems aren't limited to HOPE VI.

I think it might also help if we make HUD an independent agency so it is more difficult for a president interfere with the agency, like the SEC and USPS, although I am not sure how much that helps since the EPA is supposedly an independent agency, but they have still been negatively impacted by the Trump administration.

3 hours ago, Johann said:
  • The US under Trump is increasingly isolationist, which key allies like Germany, France, and Japan are seeing as a sign that they can't count on us. Even post-Trump, in their eyes, there's nothing ensuring that we wouldn't elect another isolationist.
  • Russia and China have been utilizing more methods that a traditional military isn't prepared for, like hacking servers.
  • China in particular is focusing more on soft power beyond its immediate sphere of influence, while the US is losing theirs. Focusing on addressing issues like housing, healthcare, education, etc with our money is part of improving the soft power the US has.

We should still maintain our spending to keep our allies at ease. Having bases, hardware, and troops on allied soil helps maintain our alliances.

Our military is more than capable at cyber warfare, although I agree that we are better at launching attacks and hacking than defending against them though.

Our loss of soft power has more do to with Trump than our military spending in my opinion. Our military spending has been about the same under Obama, and I would argue our soft power has reached its peak in recent history under Obama. I guess I would not mind diverting some funding towards USAID and education to counter China's economic influence and to maintain our technological lead and use brain drain as a tool to keep our enemies in check. I am more skeptical of diverting military funds towards healthcare and housing though. Healthcare is important, but I think our healthcare problem has more of a market share power problem than a funding problem, and if we let the government dominate the demand side as a single payer, we would be able to better negotiate better prices and bring our costs down to be more in line with other developed countries. I do not think spending on housing is going to impact our soft power much, although I guess it would look pretty nice to the rest of the world if we build enough low income housing to solve our own housing issue for the poor and have enough left over to help accept international refugees.

3 hours ago, Johann said:

I'm saying these problems are inherent to an under-regulated market. They will continue to exist unless the government address it, and if the government steps back, the problems will reemerge.

I agree the government can step into the low income housing market more to help the poor, but I think the government's current involvement in the middle income market is more than sufficient. Existing rules and regulations is enough to protect that portion of the market so far, and as long as we maintain our financial regulations, we should be able to avoid 2008's mortgage disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XRay said:
We should still maintain our spending to keep our allies at ease. Having bases, hardware, and troops on allied soil helps maintain our alliances.

Our military is more than capable at cyber warfare, although I agree that we are better at launching attacks and hacking than defending against them though.

Our loss of soft power has more do to with Trump than our military spending in my opinion. Our military spending has been about the same under Obama, and I would argue our soft power has reached its peak in recent history under Obama. I guess I would not mind diverting some funding towards USAID and education to counter China's economic influence and to maintain our technological lead and use brain drain as a tool to keep our enemies in check. I am more skeptical of diverting military funds towards healthcare and housing though. Healthcare is important, but I think our healthcare problem has more of a market share power problem than a funding problem, and if we let the government dominate the demand side as a single payer, we would be able to better negotiate better prices and bring our costs down to be more in line with other developed countries. I do not think spending on housing is going to impact our soft power much, although I guess it would look pretty nice to the rest of the world if we build enough low income housing to solve our own housing issue for the poor and have enough left over to help accept international refugees.

  • All our spending means nothing if our allies don't trust us, which they don't. They are publicly talking about ways to address global threats without our support.
  • If you're going to link an entire broad subject Wikipedia page like that, at least point to what I'm supposed to be focusing on. I'm all for spending on cyber defense, though I don't think we're that great at how we operate that.
  • Here's the bottom line: Most of our military spending isn't about national security. It's about an empire built on neoliberalism. The same neoliberal thinking that pushes the US to spend absurd amounts of money on fighter jets so Lockheed Martin stock can stay up is also driving the housing market, the private health insurance market, and so on. Ultimately, the US government is more a vehicle to help maintain wealth for certain people than it is to provide basic human needs to as many people as possible. We've installed dictators when they do what we like and we've helped remove those get in the way of our profits. The empire relies on people, such as yourself, arguing that we need the military to be overwhelmingly powerful. It relies on you being afraid of the threat that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are all biding their time, waiting to strike. But even with a fraction of our military capabilities, these countries wouldn't dare start anything major because of the toll a direct conflict would take on them and/or their own profits. So instead, we have the weaponry to "police" to world, which is about as helpful to the rest of the world as our own police are to our people. That parallel is not a coincidence, as the same thinking that drives our military also drives our police force. Wanting to cut funding for both is to want to see an end to that abuse of power.
1 hour ago, XRay said:

I agree the government can step into the low income housing market more to help the poor, but I think the government's current involvement in the middle income market is more than sufficient. Existing rules and regulations is enough to protect that portion of the market so far, and as long as we maintain our financial regulations, we should be able to avoid 2008's mortgage disaster.

You aren't listening at all, and I'm done wasting my time with you on this.

Share this post


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

It relies on you being afraid of the threat that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are all biding their time, waiting to strike.

However some of those countries really are biding their time. Not Iran or North Korea since they are third rate powers at best but Russia And China are legitimately dangerous. China is on its way of regaining its spot as a global power, if it hasn't done so already. Russia in contrast is more of a declining power but we can see that they are just itching to expand their influence. If American influences weakens in Europe Russia will seek to replace it with its own influence as it historically did many times. 

Share this post


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

Republicans only care about having control over others. Their typical anti-union, anti-regulation thinking is based on how it limits their ability to dominate industries, and thus people. They like the police because they have the ability to subjugate people in a way that is generally accepted, or at least until recently. It's also why when they talk about handling crime, it's all about punishment and not about rehabilitation. Many cops share that thinking and vote Republican knowing they'll be given more power, whether through legal protections or through funding/equipment.

No minimum wage, so they can pay inferiors practically nothing to do many 'lower' jobs.  Quick to offer assistance and bailouts to corporations, and when a CEO or other high level executive commits white collar crime despite all the money and power they already have, they go to the equivalent of a 5 star resort while someone who is caught with a bag of weed goes in with the violent criminals and gets fucked up for life.  They aren't for freedom at all, they want to enhance power and wealth of those that already have it and keep the poor rabble (peasants) from ever getting it.  Take away education, any social services, initiatives to give these people a better chance.

How do they get away with it?  Cause of fucking religion and guns.  Simple as that. 

Maybe they should read up on the French Revolution, cause people are reaching their limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of off-topic, but is anyone else having trouble how getting an roll quarters in the States? Because nobody is giving them out, nowadays and I don't feel like" stealing" some from an laundromat.

 

 My extended family thinks it's covid related and it's the start of something worse.

Share this post


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

Kind of off-topic, but is anyone else having trouble how getting an roll quarters in the States? Because nobody is giving them out, nowadays and I don't feel like" stealing" some from an laundromat.

 

 My extended family thinks it's covid related and it's the start of something worse.

I personally haven't had that issue, but that might just be due to where I live. I can frankly see currency issues continuing and being exacerbated as this virus continues. Probably measures to restrict currency being produced in order to try and drive the value of U.S. money up again, which will bring up the economy by relation. At least that's the theory if what I've read is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering; it's clear to me based on how cases have fluctuated in the past few weeks in the U.S. that the administration has done a bad job of handling the pandemic (cold as ice take, I know). That being said, how should the U.S. government be working with state governments to better contain the number of cases and mitigate the spread of the outbreak? I know there's only so much you can do to stop individuals from making dumb decisions, but since there's likely more U.S. officials COULD be doing, what measures should they be taken that they haven't?

Share this post


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

I'm wondering; it's clear to me based on how cases have fluctuated in the past few weeks in the U.S. that the administration has done a bad job of handling the pandemic (cold as ice take, I know). That being said, how should the U.S. government be working with state governments to better contain the number of cases and mitigate the spread of the outbreak? I know there's only so much you can do to stop individuals from making dumb decisions, but since there's likely more U.S. officials COULD be doing, what measures should they be taken that they haven't?

The short story is that it can't be contained without restricting travel to an absurd degree or just starting another lockdown. But speaking of stupid stuff, I heard that a bunch of high schoolers were throwing a party in Alabama to catch the virus.

2 hours ago, DarthR0xas said:

I personally haven't had that issue, but that might just be due to where I live. I can frankly see currency issues continuing and being exacerbated as this virus continues. Probably measures to restrict currency being produced in order to try and drive the value of U.S. money up again, which will bring up the economy by relation. At least that's the theory if what I've read is correct.

It's more of an contamination issue, as far as I can tell. Considering how long the virus can live on metal and where those coins have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarthR0xas said:

Probably measures to restrict currency being produced in order to try and drive the value of U.S. money up again, which will bring up the economy by relation. At least that's the theory if what I've read is correct.

It is the opposite. If you want to heat up the economy, you want to devalue your currency to encourage spending. Deflation (price of money rising) is bad because it encourages people to hoard money instead of spending it. You generally want around 2% inflation under normal circumstances. In a recession, might be a good idea to go a little higher like maybe 3% or 4%. In the 1970s, I think we reached over 10% inflation a few times, but I think that was more due to supply shocks.

I think the coin shortage is just due to the virus causing distribution problems. A lot of times when coins reach consumer hands, we just leave them in a jar or something somewhere and forget about them. I have a whole jar of coins for example that I have not withdrawn from in years.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deenward said:

I'm wondering; it's clear to me based on how cases have fluctuated in the past few weeks in the U.S. that the administration has done a bad job of handling the pandemic (cold as ice take, I know). That being said, how should the U.S. government be working with state governments to better contain the number of cases and mitigate the spread of the outbreak? I know there's only so much you can do to stop individuals from making dumb decisions, but since there's likely more U.S. officials COULD be doing, what measures should they be taken that they haven't?

At this point? Stay-at-home orders in states that have seen a surge, that'll probably have to take a few months. And probably a ban on non-commercial interstate travel.

Share this post


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

At this point? Stay-at-home orders in states that have seen a surge, that'll probably have to take a few months. And probably a ban on non-commercial interstate travel.

This. We blew our chance to have this mostly under control by summer, so now having things contained by fall is the best bet. The federal government would really have to enforce things like interstate travel bans.

Share this post


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

This. We blew our chance to have this mostly under control by summer, so now having things contained by fall is the best bet. The federal government would really have to enforce things like interstate travel bans.

Yeah, I don't see that happening purely because health and safety are political matters to that guy in DC who doesn't deserve to be named.

Share this post


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

At this point? Stay-at-home orders in states that have seen a surge, that'll probably have to take a few months. And probably a ban on non-commercial interstate travel.

 

14 hours ago, Slumber said:

This. We blew our chance to have this mostly under control by summer, so now having things contained by fall is the best bet. The federal government would really have to enforce things like interstate travel bans.

That makes sense. My only question would be what the best way to enforce these bans would be. Considering how blatantly prejudiced and corrupt large swaths of the police force are, relying on them to ensure people don't break their stay-at-home orders and meet up sounds like a bad idea. Would the federal government have to send in agents to all U.S. states and territories to enforce it? That way, you have a better regulated body of officials far less likely to exploit their position to hurt people or fly off the handle and make impulsive and deadly decisions. Or would the government being on the same page and universally requesting people in the U.S. comply with the rules be enough to convince the vast majority? Either way, it just sucks knowing that the administration is not taking the resurgence of cases seriously.

It's complicated, too, because people (rightfully) want to continue to protest the systemic racism and police brutality pervading this country and finally get officials from the state to the government level to take the problem seriously. But I can't imagine thousands of people gathering up in tight groups helps quell spread of the pandemic. Should people be allowed to use their right to protest to gather like that, even under/assuming the conditions of a stay-at-home order? I'm honestly not sure right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning protests and closing malls, restaurants and bars are two separate things. And from the looks of it, the protests contributed little to the viral load, and opening up the restaurants added a ton. 

As for the issue of enforcement, start handing out fines. If the cops won't do it or suck, you still have national guard, and military police. Obviously deploying MPs for civilian duties on US soil would be problematic, but I'm sure a way can be found.

Share this post


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

That makes sense. My only question would be what the best way to enforce these bans would be. Considering how blatantly prejudiced and corrupt large swaths of the police force are, relying on them to ensure people don't break their stay-at-home orders and meet up sounds like a bad idea. Would the federal government have to send in agents to all U.S. states and territories to enforce it? That way, you have a better regulated body of officials far less likely to exploit their position to hurt people or fly off the handle and make impulsive and deadly decisions. Or would the government being on the same page and universally requesting people in the U.S. comply with the rules be enough to convince the vast majority? Either way, it just sucks knowing that the administration is not taking the resurgence of cases seriously.

It's complicated, too, because people (rightfully) want to continue to protest the systemic racism and police brutality pervading this country and finally get officials from the state to the government level to take the problem seriously. But I can't imagine thousands of people gathering up in tight groups helps quell spread of the pandemic. Should people be allowed to use their right to protest to gather like that, even under/assuming the conditions of a stay-at-home order? I'm honestly not sure right now.

Many local/state governments enforced lockdowns on restaurants, etc with threats of fines, losing their liquor license, etc. No need to involve the police, really.

As @Excellen Browning pointed out, the BLM protests haven't been a problem. I posted some links in the COVID thread about a few major places not seeing any change in their downward trend of new cases, check 'em out:

Share this post


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

Obviously deploying MPs for civilian duties on US soil would be problematic, but I'm sure a way can be found.

this actually isn't as big a deal as it might sound - iirc there is precedence for calling up reservists for natural disasters and the like, and we have a fairly substantial reservist/ROTC population to call upon for that

EDIT: yeah, there's a big old DoD article about it as a retroactive response to katrina

Edited by Integrity

Share this post


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

Banning protests and closing malls, restaurants and bars are two separate things. And from the looks of it, the protests contributed little to the viral load, and opening up the restaurants added a ton. 

As for the issue of enforcement, start handing out fines. If the cops won't do it or suck, you still have national guard, and military police. Obviously deploying MPs for civilian duties on US soil would be problematic, but I'm sure a way can be found.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Many local/state governments enforced lockdowns on restaurants, etc with threats of fines, losing their liquor license, etc. No need to involve the police, really.

As @Excellen Browning pointed out, the BLM protests haven't been a problem. I posted some links in the COVID thread about a few major places not seeing any change in their downward trend of new cases, check 'em out:

Thanks for informing me. I'd heard that the virus in general didn't transmit nearly as well in open air as it does in close quarters, so it's encouraging to see there's data strongly suggesting that to be the case.

While keeping the country on lock-down inevitably hurts the economy, it's the better option when the alternative has been this ridiculous back-and-forth the administration has been putting the U.S. through has kept Corona around even longer, killing more people and causing even more long-term damage to the economy. A horrible situation like the one we're stuck in isn't going to have some kind of perfect solution that instantly makes everything better, and pretending this isn't a horrible situation hasn't helped anything. People on this forum have talked about how France's firm commitment to the lock-down/stay at home approach has massively curbed the virus's spread there. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/15/876953360/france-announces-further-reopening-amid-declining-number-of-coronavirus-cases

Share this post


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

Banning protests and closing malls, restaurants and bars are two separate things. And from the looks of it, the protests contributed little to the viral load, and opening up the restaurants added a ton. 

As for the issue of enforcement, start handing out fines. If the cops won't do it or suck, you still have national guard, and military police. Obviously deploying MPs for civilian duties on US soil would be problematic, but I'm sure a way can be found.

Technically speaking, an MPs jurisdiction is supposed to end at ththe front gate of his base and the National Guard were usually called in for riot duty or natural disasters. The only branch of the military that routinely cites people would be the Coast Guard.

But you can't just start fining people for being outside of they're just running errands or working.

Share this post


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

Technically speaking, an MPs jurisdiction is supposed to end at ththe front gate of his base and the National Guard were usually called in for riot duty or natural disasters. The only branch of the military that routinely cites people would be the Coast Guard.

But you can't just start fining people for being outside of they're just running errands or working.

If you can use national guard for riot duty, you can use them and MPs to fine people and order them back into their home.

And obviously, people running errands or more specifically getting groceries, and working, and working out on their own would be the exceptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The train of thought is a little hard to follow in this article, but categorizing those that oppose him as "evil, bad people" shouldn't be par for the course.  I could write out an essay on what annoys me about this particular stunt, but it's stuff he's done before. . .well, maybe not the fire hazard things, but still.

Share this post


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

If you can use national guard for riot duty, you can use them and MPs to fine people and order them back into their home.

And obviously, people running errands or more specifically getting groceries, and working, and working out on their own would be the exceptions. 

You could try to declare martial law, but that has certain prerequisites for it. And the reason why the military can't have an direct role in civilian law enforcement is this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Posse_Comitatus_Act&oldid=964547938

Note that the Coast Guard gets an exception because they're customs officers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm well aware of posse comitatus, but it doesn't outright ban the use of federal troops like you seem to think, it just imposes restrictions.

101st airborne escorted black children to school after brown v board of education, when then-governor Faubus attempted to block them by deploying the national guard. Federal troops were deployed to deal with the Rodney King riots, and army troops were used to keep order, no matter how bad, in the aftermath of Katrina. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the restrictions aren't so much on Doing it (you don't have to call martial law or anything), they're on the scope of how done it should be - that's why i brought up reservists/etc (as i assume excellen is referencing) in the wake of katrina. the national guard and army/air force reservists are equally deployable in peacetime for aid, which i believe the covid falls under assuming a sane administration

 

Edited by Integrity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...this is a thing?
 

I'm seeing things stating he's missed a few deadlines, but is otherwise able to run as an independent? This sounds bogus, and, if he does actually run, I worry any votes he gets will just shift towards Trump in the EC.

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...