General US Politics

[Alertcircuit]

Actual question: What is wrong with someone who's socialist?

I mean, it's a nice buzz word, but what are the objective down sides to it?

Many consider socialism a system that's not always economically viable in the long run, because the more you earn, the more you get taxed, which after a certain point can kill motivation to go above and beyond with work. There's also the concern that the government isn't using all of your tax money efficiently.

On the topic of Bernie and socialism, Bernie identifies as a Democratic Socialist. This is different than the socialism that most people have grown to fear. Democratic Socialists generally don't believe the government should own means of production, but do believe that the government should provide necessities like healthcare and education to its people. So it's really kind of like a cushiony version of capitalism, as opposed to regular socialism which is a lot more authoritarian.

From what I've learned, Trump is the only one that isn't going to just "tip-toe around the problem" and stay politically correct all the time and crap, he wants to redefine certain things and actually fix things.

With how often he flipflops, I get the impression he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. He seems like more of an idea guy than a do-er.

[eclipse]

Interesting. I think I understand Duff's PoV a lot better, especially after his answer.

That being said, I think there needs to be a balance between the government and private entities. America's too far over in favor of private entities, IMO. Government shouldn't have to hand-hold all public services, but Duff/Ana, have you ever seen how much an emergency room visit is, without insurance? That's part of the reason why there's a movement towards European policies.

Unless the Republican party tries to work towards a better government, instead of opposing anyone that disagrees with them at every step (see: Republican strategy regarding Sotirio's replacement), I can't support them. Bernie's biggest hurdle IMO will be Republican opposition, whether it be on principle or because a representative's constituents oppose his policies. In other words, I think we'll see four years of nothing being done.

Dunno if the Democratic party pulls the same shit when there's a Republican president. . .if so, then America's due for a political party overhaul.

[Anacybele]

Oh yeah, I know all about that. Obamacare was supposed to make more people get insurance, but the problem with it was that if you didn't get insurance, you'd get fined, and if people can't afford insurance, how the hell can they afford to pay a fine? It made no sense. I'm not saying I think the government shouldn't have ANY control, they should certainly have some control over certain things. But not EVERYthing.

Dunno if the Democratic party pulls the same shit when there's a Republican president. . .if so, then America's due for a political party overhaul.

I think Democrats have been in power too long and a Republican needs to step in. And America does need a political party overhaul, which is kind of what Trump is doing, I believe. He's not your typical politician, aka he's redefining politics. He's even gotten me a little interested when I previously had ZERO interest in politics.

[solrocknroll]

I see Ana say that Trump isn't politically correct and implies it's an upside. But how is that an upside? I believe that all people should attempt to never offend one another, but it's one thing for people to make jokes in their homes. It's another thing for politicians to say whatever they want and risk offending people. There's a reason a lot of Republican politicians are hated, and it's because of gay/trans people more than anything else. Sexuality and gender are important to topics to be politically correct, and race and religion are just as important to protect.

IMO, it's a major negative that Trump doesn't sugarcoat what he says. No one should ever have to face the possibility of being offended because of who they are.

[Anacybele]

Whoa, hold on there, I never said we should NEVER be politically correct. Obviously those topics you brought up should be.

But sometimes being politically correct is stupid and some people get offended WAY too easily. Like some people don't want us to say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance or to say the pledge of allegiance at all because it's "too offensive" to some people. Like wtf. If you don't want to say these things, fine, I don't think you should be forced to, but nobody should be trying to make the whole damn country stop doing its traditions.

I didn't mean that Trump is NEVER politically correct, he's just less politically correct than the others which I think is a good thing.

Trump just needs to think before he speaks. It's fine that he doesn't sugarcoat things, but he needs to do it in a way that he's not seriously offending people, that I agree with.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Anacybele

[eclipse]

Oh yeah, I know all about that. Obamacare was supposed to make more people get insurance, but the problem with it was that if you didn't get insurance, you'd get fined, and if people can't afford insurance, how the hell can they afford to pay a fine? It made no sense. I'm not saying I think the government shouldn't have ANY control, they should certainly have some control over certain things. But not EVERYthing.

You didn't answer my question. Have you seen how much an emergency room visit is? If so, what's the price in your area?

And now, the second question: Did you read the Affordable Care Act in its original form?

[Anacybele]

Actually, I did answer it. I said I know all about how expensive health care can be, in the emergency room or elsewhere. But I don't know how much it is here, as I've never had to go to the emergency room here.

No, I've never read that. I never had an interest in any of that stuff. Until recently, sort of.

[eclipse]

I'd like a concrete answer - namely, a dollar amount. Because it sounds like you're repeating things you've heard, as opposed to things you've actually experienced. . .wait, don't experience an uninsured emergency room visit, it sucks. If you want to support Trump, that's fine - just make sure that you can answer questions like "how much is an emergency room visit in your area". Stuff like health care is being talked about for a very good reason.

[BBM]

You see, on paper, Sanders's idea of free college and raised minimum wage sounds good, but these would really have some not good results. Raising minimum wage would force companies to pay their workers more, thus they might have to let some workers go in order to be able to afford that, and the unemployment rate goes up. Prices on goods and services could go up too because companies will need more money to pay their employees higher wages. And nobody wants this, right?

As for college, how would colleges make any money if it was free? How would they get their teaching supplies, textbooks for students, etc. etc. How would their employees get paid as well?

Bernie Sanders just doesn't think things through and wants the government to have more control over stuff. I don't think that's right. The economy runs in a circle all coming down to the circulation of money. Oil prices affect gas prices which affect the prices of a lot of products which affect a company's income which affect employees' wages which affect what people buy which can affect how much income companies get. You really need to think it all entirely through before making any economical changes. You could find that making a certain single change could throw a monkey wrench into the whole system and make it fall apart. It's really basic high school economics and I actually nearly failed that class. xP

What does need to happen though, is college books and stuff being a little cheaper. I'm hearing that a lot of students are downloading/getting them illegally because they're just too expensive. In short, college should just be more affordable and accessible, not free.

From what I've learned, Trump is the only one that isn't going to just "tip-toe around the problem" and stay politically correct all the time and crap, he wants to redefine certain things and actually fix things. I also lean a lot more towards Republican than Democratic beliefs and I don't like Cruz at all.

1. I admittedly don't have statistics about this for the US, but raising minimum wage/increasing corporate tax was brought up in Canada's federal election last year. A lot of companies give huge bonuses to executives and other top employees, and/or have a lot of dead money lying around. Are you really telling me Walmarts or McDonalds can't afford to pay their workers $1 more an hour?

2. Do you know, universities in Norway are free not only for local students, but also for international students? Amazingly, they haven't shut down yet. That's because free tuition doesn't mean that colleges don't get paid; it means that the government pays the tuition. Also, Bernie is only advocating free tuition for local students, and only at public colleges. I believe the majority of colleges are private and wouldn't be affected at all.

3. I do in fact think that somewhere in Bernie's camp, someone did in fact do well in high school economics. That person might even have undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in economics. In fact, it might even be more than one person!

4. I don't understand; how do you make college more affordable without further subsidizing it?

5. Do you know, one of Trump's main ways to balance the budget is to cut funding given to the Department of Education? If Trump is elected and keeps his promises, trust me, college will not be more affordable or accessible for anyone.

For what it's worth, I actually don't agree with Bernie's plan of making tuition free at public colleges, but I think your arguments are bad. I think flipping a switch and making tuition free is extremely unfair for the people who graduated just prior to the policy being put in place. They graduate just before, in the same economic environment, but with potentially tens of thousands more in debt. It puts them in a much worse situation with regards to pretty much everything- their ability to take out loans and mortgages, buy houses, buy cars, whatever. It needs to be either phased in or accompanied by waiving school loans for those who have already graduated.

[Anacybele]

I'd like a concrete answer - namely, a dollar amount. Because it sounds like you're repeating things you've heard, as opposed to things you've actually experienced. . .wait, don't experience an uninsured emergency room visit, it sucks. If you want to support Trump, that's fine - just make sure that you can answer questions like "how much is an emergency room visit in your area". Stuff like health care is being talked about for a very good reason.

Yeah, but I don't want to have to experience an emergency room visit at all. :P

1. I admittedly don't have statistics about this for the US, but raising minimum wage/increasing corporate tax was brought up in Canada's federal election last year. A lot of companies give huge bonuses to executives and other top employees, and/or have a lot of dead money lying around. Are you really telling me Walmarts or McDonalds can't afford to pay their workers $1 more an hour?

2. Do you know, universities in Norway are free not only for local students, but also for international students? Amazingly, they haven't shut down yet. That's because free tuition doesn't mean that colleges don't get paid; it means that the government pays the tuition. Also, Bernie is only advocating free tuition for local students, and only at public colleges. I believe the majority of colleges are private and wouldn't be affected at all.

3. I do in fact think that somewhere in Bernie's camp, someone did in fact do well in high school economics. That person might even have undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in economics. In fact, it might even be more than one person!

4. I don't understand; how do you make college more affordable without further subsidizing it?

5. Do you know, one of Trump's main ways to balance the budget is to cut funding given to the Department of Education? If Trump is elected and keeps his promises, trust me, college will not be more affordable or accessible for anyone.

For what it's worth, I actually don't agree with Bernie's plan of making tuition free at public colleges, but I think your arguments are bad. I think flipping a switch and making tuition free is extremely unfair for the people who graduated just prior to the policy being put in place. They graduate just before, in the same economic environment, but with potentially tens of thousands more in debt. It puts them in a much worse situation with regards to pretty much everything- their ability to take out loans and mortgages, buy houses, buy cars, whatever. It needs to be either phased in or accompanied by waiving school loans for those who have already graduated.

And government paying for all that is probably why European countries are facing economic problems. At least this is what my stepdad has explained to me. I'm not saying I got everything I know from him, but a few things I did and they make a lot of sense to me. The government pays for more things, they spend more. They spend more, they lose more.

As for Trump wanting to cut funding to the department of education, well, that is definitely something I wouldn't agree with. But I don't actually agree with EVERYTHING he says, just most of it.

[Magical CC]

Many consider socialism a system that's not always economically viable in the long run, because the more you earn, the more you get taxed, which after a certain point can kill motivation to go above and beyond with work. There's also the concern that the government isn't using all of your tax money efficiently.

Considering the low the taxes on the riches in America compared to the taxes on the riches of other countries, nah. And dont be ridiculous, people always want to earn more, no matter what. People always want to stand above the others, it's human natural.

And do you honestly believe the current government or American government in the last 20 years spent the tax money efficiently? If waging pointless wars and supporting terrorists are efficient to you then I dont know what to say. At least, I dont see how Bernie or even Trump could make it worse.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Magical CC

[dondon151]

From what I've learned, Trump is the only one that isn't going to just "tip-toe around the problem" and stay politically correct all the time and crap, he wants to redefine certain things and actually fix things. I also lean a lot more towards Republican than Democratic beliefs and I don't like Cruz at all.

trump is the guy who claims to be politically incorrect but historically has sued or threatened to sue the pants off any person or organization who has published anything negative about him. think about that for a second.

the hypocrisy is unreal. trump is a bigger pussy than any bleeding-heart liberal.

[BBM]

You also lose more when you cut taxes more. If I want to speak in broad generalizations like Duff, this is what Republican platforms are based on. Cut taxes to lower revenue and then say they're going to cut government programs even more than they've cut taxes. This doesn't work, partially because of high military spending.

What exactly do you even like about Trump's platform? Do you even know his platform or is your support based purely on how he carries himself and his policy towards Muslims? These are the main things I've seen you support him on.

Edited April 4, 2016 by BBM

[Phoenix Wright]

This is all great and I don't disagree, but I wasn't singling Sanders out over hypothetical budget deficits. That comment was part of a larger point that $15.3 trillion dollars of new revenue over a ten year period - which I'll remind everyone would be an incredible new tax burden even on those of us within the celebrated "99%" - would probably not even come close to paying the bills.

how so?

And government paying for all that is probably why European countries are facing economic problems. At least this is what my stepdad has explained to me.

lots of things you've mentioned that he's said can be proven false pretty quickly. i'd take what he says with a grain of salt.

[tuvarkz]

I see Ana say that Trump isn't politically correct and implies it's an upside. But how is that an upside? I believe that all people should attempt to never offend one another, but it's one thing for people to make jokes in their homes. It's another thing for politicians to say whatever they want and risk offending people. There's a reason a lot of Republican politicians are hated, and it's because of gay/trans people more than anything else. Sexuality and gender are important to topics to be politically correct, and race and religion are just as important to protect.

IMO, it's a major negative that Trump doesn't sugarcoat what he says. No one should ever have to face the possibility of being offended because of who they are.

One of these things is not like the others. Religion is just an ideology that happens to be dogmatic in nature, and ideologies may be better or worse than each other on different aspects, but there are some that still have quite a considerable amount of issues. If you embrace a religion, then you should be ready to defend your ideology against criticisms of it. I will criticize muslims, catholics, or any other religion on their ideology's issues just like any secular ideology whose flaws I criticize.

On the other hand, you can't choose sexuality/gender/race, so there might be some point to this. (Although then, people using these as a free pass to get away with bullsh*t are a different issue)

trump is the guy who claims to be politically incorrect but historically has sued or threatened to sue the pants off any person or organization who has published anything negative about him. think about that for a second.

the hypocrisy is unreal. trump is a bigger pussy than any bleeding-heart liberal.

Considering how mainstream media constantly portrays Trump worse than he is, to the point of twisting the truth? If the media sells "news" and said news are false or half-truths, then I believe they should be open to being sued for what would be considered a scam in other products. (One particular example is how more often than not it's presented as "Trump supporters open violence" when it's Trump supporters that start it, but "Violence erupts" when it's the anti-Trump protesters that do so)

Edited April 4, 2016 by tuvarkz

[BBM]

Here's a more accurate statement: Trump says things that incite violence, either directly or indirectly. I don't condone the anti-Trump people who start fights, just as I don't condone the pro-Trump people who do it. But they're both being incited by Trump; just in opposite ways.

[blah the Prussian]

Here's a more accurate statement: Trump says things that incite violence, either directly or indirectly. I don't condone the anti-Trump people who start fights, just as I don't condone the pro-Trump people who do it. But they're both being incited by Trump; just in opposite ways.

Okay, whoa whoa whoa, thats like saying Louis XVI was to blame for a bunch of unwashed Sans Culottes murdering innocent prison guards doing their jobs. The violence from both sides is equally inexcusable, as violence of any kind whatsoever has no place in a democracy. It is not Trump's fault that people are resorting to thuggery at his rallies. It is partially Trump's fault that his supporters are resorting to thuggery.

One of these things is not like the others. Religion is just an ideology that happens to be dogmatic in nature, and ideologies may be better or worse than each other on different aspects, but there are some that still have quite a considerable amount of issues. If you embrace a religion, then you should be ready to defend your ideology against criticisms of it. I will criticize muslims, catholics, or any other religion on their ideology's issues just like any secular ideology whose flaws I criticize.

On the other hand, you can't choose sexuality/gender/race, so there might be some point to this. (Although then, people using these as a free pass to get away with bullsh*t are a different issue)

Considering how mainstream media constantly portrays Trump worse than he is, to the point of twisting the truth? If the media sells "news" and said news are false or half-truths, then I believe they should be open to being sued for what would be considered a scam in other products. (One particular example is how more often than not it's presented as "Trump supporters open violence" when it's Trump supporters that start it, but "Violence erupts" when it's the anti-Trump protesters that do so)

I don't disagree, but I would make a distinction between, for example, criticizing Islam, which is legitimate, and criticizing Muslims, when you have no idea how much of the Koran they live by. On the other hand, when you criticize Muslims you do have an idea about, like the Saudi King or Khameini, that can either be legitimate or illegitimate. Trump saying, though, that all Muslims should be barred from entering the US is illegitimate. Ayaan Hersi Ali criticizing Islam is legitimate. See the difference?

[Anacybele]

Here's a more accurate statement: Trump says things that incite violence, either directly or indirectly. I don't condone the anti-Trump people who start fights, just as I don't condone the pro-Trump people who do it. But they're both being incited by Trump; just in opposite ways.

I highly doubt he actually tells these people to go start violence.

[Magical CC]

I wonder if the Panama scandal will affect Trump.

[tuvarkz]

Okay, whoa whoa whoa, thats like saying Louis XVI was to blame for a bunch of unwashed Sans Culottes murdering innocent prison guards doing their jobs. The violence from both sides is equally inexcusable, as violence of any kind whatsoever has no place in a democracy. It is not Trump's fault that people are resorting to thuggery at his rallies. It is partially Trump's fault that his supporters are resorting to thuggery.

I don't disagree, but I would make a distinction between, for example, criticizing Islam, which is legitimate, and criticizing Muslims, when you have no idea how much of the Koran they live by. On the other hand, when you criticize Muslims you do have an idea about, like the Saudi King or Khameini, that can either be legitimate or illegitimate. Trump saying, though, that all Muslims should be barred from entering the US is illegitimate. Ayaan Hersi Ali criticizing Islam is legitimate. See the difference?

The thing is, if some surveys are to be believed, there's a dangerously high proportion of Muslims that would appear to support downright barbaric practices, even if they don't resort to violent tactics to have them enforced in other places. I believe that Trump's temporary ban of muslims until the whole situation can be actually figured out is a legitimate tactic. I believe I've linked it before, but here: Functionally, there have been immigration bans before, even if Trump's one covers a wider group.

I highly doubt he actually tells these people to go start violence.

As a matter of fact, he's admonished them for it quite a few times in the rallies.

I wonder if the Panama scandal will affect Trump.

No idea, but if he is involved in it, playing off as "Business tactic to stay on top" will still cost him a considerable amount of votes.

[Anacybele]

As a matter of fact, he's admonished them for it quite a few times in the rallies.

I had to look up what the word admonished means... I feel kind of dumb for that. >.> But it says it means to caution, advise, scold against something, something like that. So it sounds to me like Trump wants that violence to stop. That's a good thing.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Anacybele

[DragonLord]

I highly doubt he actually tells these people to go start violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-protesters_us_56e2da10e4b0b25c918198c2

https://www.rt.com/usa/336464-trump-protesters-violence-assault/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-refuses-to-denounce-violence-against-black-protesters-at-his-campaign-rallies-a6926411.html

On several accounts he's mentioned wanting to attack protesters, even peaceful ones. In one particular instance, he told his supporters he wanted to punch the protester in the face. He even offered to pay legal fees for one of his violent supporters, but is now reconsidering after realizing how stupid of an idea it was. Not to mention he made comments about how if he murdered someone, his supporters would still remain loyal to him.

Edited April 4, 2016 by DragonLord

[blah the Prussian]

The thing is, if some surveys are to be believed, there's a dangerously high proportion of Muslims that would appear to support downright barbaric practices, even if they don't resort to violent tactics to have them enforced in other places. I believe that Trump's temporary ban of muslims until the whole situation can be actually figured out is a legitimate tactic. I believe I've linked it before, but here: Functionally, there have been immigration bans before, even if Trump's one covers a wider group.

As a matter of fact, he's admonished them for it quite a few times in the rallies.

No idea, but if he is involved in it, playing off as "Business tactic to stay on top" will still cost him a considerable amount of votes.

Several problems with this. I don't think you can collect reliable data in a good deal of the countries listed on account of ongoing civil war. Secondly, the demographics are not listed. They could have disproportionately asked old men, who, understandably, would be more likely to favor Sharia law. I honestly find a lot of this data suspect because if it is true, why are these countries not Sharia countries, especially in democracies like Jordan, Bosnia, etc? I also note that, with the exception of Bosnia, not one of these countries are western. Regardless of this data, it is still not enough to justify generalizations about Islam that include the word "all". Of course, if I criticize Islam (fundamentalist) and someone is offended, that's their problem, but they would be justified in being offended if I criticized Muslims.

[Anacybele]

Not to mention he made comments about how if he murdered someone, his supporters would still remain loyal to him.

I think this was meant to be more of a joke saying that some of Trump's supporters would be stupid enough to still support him if he did murder someone. Not that he actually will. That's simply insane.

[Phoenix Wright]

does it matter if it was a joke?