General US Politics

[Nobody]

laissez-faire markets are pretty much demonstrably bad. workers are always exploited, even to the point of death. the government does not control everything lol

Are they, though?

There's a strong correlation between economic freedom (which means the country being closer to laissez faire economics) and quality of life and gdp per capita

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

The contries closest to having laissez faire markets (i.e first world countries) certainly aren't the ones where workers die of exaustion. A country can have a strong welfare system and also have a freer market (which is actually exactly what scandinavia has)

Edited August 14, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[blah the Prussian]

Are they, though?

There's a strong correlation between economic freedom (which means the country being closer to laissez faire economics) and quality of life and gdp per capitahttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

The contries closest to having laissez faire markets (i.e first world countries) certainly aren't the ones where workers die of exaustion. A country can have a strong welfare system and also have a freer market (which is actually exactly what scandinavia has)

That's not what Libertarians are in favor of, though. Being pro laissez afire pretty much means being anti welfare.

[Phoenix Wright]

Are they, though?

There's a strong correlation between economic freedom (which means the country being closer to laissez faire economics) and quality of life and gdp per capita

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

The contries closest to having laissez faire markets (i.e first world countries) certainly aren't the ones where workers die of exaustion. A country can have a strong welfare system and also have a freer market (which is actually exactly what scandinavia has)

well, a few things

they're correlated, but this doesn't mean anything.

economic freedom doesn't pertain only to unregulated markets.

"quality of life," "happiness rankings," and things of that nature are actually just bullshit. how do you measure that? it's a guess with no viable way of measurement. quality of life is bit easier, of course, but among the western world it's hard to decipher. gdp per capita doesn't yield the entire story--the united states, for example, has one of the worst wealth gaps in the modernized world. income gap is not as big, but is significant enough to make it seem like the average person is richer than they actually are.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Tryhard]

The link you posted says opposition to universal background checks is primarily because it would require checks even for a private transfer between individuals. So, someone gifting their firearm to a friend or family member, would require the recipient to go through a background check.

The idea is also to close the "gun show loophole", which is basically just non-FFL holding (private) citizens looking for a place to sell their firearms; and is technically not a loophole, since the law says private sellers are not required to perform background checks. Some states, however, already require universal background checks.

Interestingly, there was a poll done when a gun control bill failed in Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/

It appears like polls asking people about specific ideas gets wide support, but when they actually try to pass legislation for gun control, the usual partisan split happens.

Shouldn't the only thing that matters is that people actually do want background checks, as shown by the polls? I mean, there may be certain stipulations that people disagree with from certain gun control bills, and I expect that.

And yeah, I was aware that some states do so (though the majority do not), but I figured the point was to make it federal-wide.

I don't live in Europe, but I think countries like Switzerland and the Czech Republic have decent gun laws; the Czech Republic even accepts the use of firearms for self-defense. If I were to live in Europe, the Czech Republic probably sounds like the best place for me to be if I wanted to enjoy similar gun rights.

I think his question was what is your opinion for most other European countries in which guns are severely restricted or banned for citizens, and not if you would necessarily want to live there. Edited August 14, 2016 by Tryhard

[CyborgZeta]

We already do background checks outside private sales, and mentally ill individuals are banned from purchasing guns. Regardless of how the poll gets its sample size, those two proposals are what gets bipartisan support in the poll. However, I'm wondering if the pollsters are not phrasing the questions right. Universal background checks on a nationwide level would be considered stricter gun control; and that same poll shows that when you propose stricter gun control, opinions are nowhere near unanimous.

I think his question was what is your opinion for most other European countries in which guns are severely restricted or banned for citizens, and not if you would necessarily want to live there.

If that is the case, then my opinion would be that I disagree with laws that restrict or ban gun ownership. However, I do not live in Europe, so I am not going to tell the people there what laws they should or shouldn't have. They have their own cultures and their own reasons for the gun laws they have. The same can be said of the US.

[Ansem]

Why doesn't Trump release his tax report? His supporters would support him regardless of whats on there.

[Nobody]

Why doesn't Trump release his tax report? His supporters would support him regardless of whats on there.

i think he's ashamed of people discovering he's not as rich as he claims to be

[Alertcircuit]

i think he's ashamed of people discovering he's not as rich as he claims to be

That wouldn't just be a shame thing, that'd be strategic too. If being a billionaire business tycoon is literally his only experience, I imagine his campaign would be scrambling to at least keep that.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

fair enough to keep some things a secret if the other candidate is too i suppose.

[Ansem]

i think he's ashamed of people discovering he's not as rich as he claims to be

This is plausible

fair enough to keep some things a secret if the other candidate is too i suppose.

Its a normal thing for presidential candidate to release their tax documents though.

[Lord Raven]

Why doesn't Trump release his tax report? His supporters would support him regardless of whats on there.

I can think of a good reason why.

[euklyd]

i think he's ashamed of people discovering he's not as rich as he claims to be

If you'd asked me two days ago, this would've been my guess as well.

But right now, I'd give it even odds that it's because his projects are actually bankrolled by Russian oligarchs. With the national chairman of his campaign now in the spotlight for (possibly) receiving upwards of $12 million under the table from Viktor Yanukovych's political organization (for those not in the know, Yanukovych is the former PM of Ukraine, ousted in a popular uprising, and is a close ally of the Kremlin), and his involvement in the laundering of Ukrainian assets to Russian oligarchs, I'm seeing Trump's vehemently pro-Russia rhetoric in a much darker light.

I would link the article but Raven beat me to it. The reddit thread that goes along with it is pretty fun, though.

To recap:

a) Trump has repeatedly praised Putin as a leader, and stated that he wishes to work more closely with him.

b) Trump has stated on multiple occasions that he believes that NATO is a relic of the past, and that he would dismantle NATO or at least significantly scale it back.

c) The sole change to the GOP party platform that Trump's campaign requested was the removal of language critical of the Kremlin re: Ukraine.

d) Manafort isn't the only one of Trump's top aides/advisors that have ties to Russia; Michael Flynn, Boris Epshteyn, and Carter Page, among others, are all very pro-Kremlin to say the least. (On a tangential note: Jill Stein's campaign may have similar issues, if the statement of her VP pick and her trip to Russia are anything to go by.)

e) Trump has recently had trouble deciding exactly how close a relationship he has with Putin.

Honorable mentions:

- Trump's daughter is currently on vacation with Putin's girlfriend.

- "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets ... We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." —Donald Trump, Jr., 2008

Now, I'm not trying to say that Trump is a knowing, complicit agent of the Russian Federation.......but at this point I think it's more than likely that he is nevertheless an unwitting agent, and that his campaign is more or less controlled by actual Russian agents.

And nevertheless I don't expect to see any senior Republicans disavowing themselves of this campaign anytime soon.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Euklyd

[CyborgZeta]

Almost feels like we're back in the era of McCarthyism.

Personally, I don't really care what's in Trump's tax returns. Whether he releases them or not, whether he has business connections to Russia or genocidal aliens from Venus, nothing would make me suddenly want to vote for Hillary.

Edited August 16, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[euklyd]

Let's be real, if we were back in the era of McCarthyism, the feds would likely already be holding Trump on suspicion of collusion with a hostile foreign power. They'd definitely have locked up Manafort, though.

I'm not sure what refusing to vote for Clinton does for you, though. It's not like staying home is going to make a better candidate be elected.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

your implying that cyborg would just stay at home if this happen, rather then just voting for trump anyways, which is what I'd do for my own reasons.

[Crysta]

Yeah Trump wouldn't be a presidential nominee of a prominent political party if we were in the McCarthy era. Lets not start using his name as a buzzword.

[euklyd]

your implying that cyborg would just stay at home if this happen, rather then just voting for trump anyways, which is what I'd do for my own reasons.

I was assuming that regardless of one's feelings on Clinton, she'd be preferable to a candidate in bed with, quote, "genocidal aliens from Venus." I suppose I may have been a bit too hasty in that assumption.

[Crysta]

I was assuming that regardless of one's feelings on Clinton, she'd be preferable to a candidate in bed with, quote, "genocidal aliens from Venus." I suppose I may have been a bit too hasty in that assumption.

They're not genocidal towards ME so I don't care!

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

They're not genocidal towards ME so I don't care!

pretty much, heck i care less about the people that wouldn't want to genocide the gays and bi's then the ones that actually would want too, that a certain woman wants to bring in more of, which is why i can not vote for her as i distrust that section of culture and religion after the Orlando attack.

i guess in more blunt terms, i'd rather be allied with Russia if the alternative is allowing more intolerant people that would want to bring harm to me for my sexual preference. I am sorry that i'd rather not risk my life on increasing our refugee influx by 500%. please understand.

Edited August 16, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[CyborgZeta]

I'm not sure what refusing to vote for Clinton does for you, though. It's not like staying home is going to make a better candidate be elected.

I won't vote for Clinton because I don't trust her, among other things. If we use TPP as an example: she says she opposes it, but I have no reason to trust she'd continue to oppose it if she won. Once she knows she has power, she can do whatever she wants. I'm sure you'd say the same about Trump, but I'd rather take the risk with an unknown than a known.

While this isn't the McCarthy era, I'm personally tired of Russia still being used as a boogeyman in US politics. I'd be more concerned with Hillary's potential ties to Saudi Arabia, which is far worse than Russia, as far as I'm concerned.

I have my reasons for voting Trump, but if I wasn't voting for him, I'd just stay home. Third-party candidates have no chance, and my state is going to go red regardless of what I do.

Edited August 16, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[euklyd]

I wouldn't say the same about Trump, because I don't actually think the TPP is literally Satan, which is apparently a rarely held opinion? Trump has also come out against NAFTA, which I think has even less of a chance of being literally Satan. I think for a businessman, that's an incredibly stupid position to take, but that's beside the point.
I am, frankly speaking, amazed that any GOP nominee would be against free-trade deals, especially a nominee whose entire schtick is that he's supposedly Really Good™ at business.

I don't actually have any response to a claim that Trump would be better for LGBT anything, especially if it's on the grounds of his xenophobic hatemongering. I'll concede that point to you; you win.

[Phoenix Wright]

pretty much, heck i care less about the people that wouldn't want to genocide the gays and bi's then the ones that actually would want too, that a certain woman wants to bring in more of, which is why i can not vote for her as i distrust that section of culture and religion after the Orlando attack.

i guess in more blunt terms, i'd rather be allied with Russia if the alternative is allowing more intolerant people that would want to bring harm to me for my sexual preference. I am sorry that i'd rather not risk my life on increasing our refugee influx by 500%. please understand.

can you even point to one refugee that's committed an act of terror against anyone in the us, let alone homosexuals?

[UNLEASH IT]

can you even point to one refugee that's committed an act of terror against anyone in the us, let alone homosexuals?

I don't think he was talking about refugees, but rather Muslims in general. Which is also a point for debate.

[solrocknroll]

makalov fan's posts typically read of extreme irrational islamophobia, and yet I'm pretty sure radical white Christians are just as likely if not more to kill someone for their sexuality or gender identity

[blah the Prussian]

Well actually radical black Christians if you look at people like Joseph Kony and Uganda. But then thats just because those are the places where they're in power.