The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I thought it was checkmate putin. If America is communist, what will putin run his economy with after he has to obliterate military spending?

He'll just go:

After being swarmed by everything related to trump in the media, I got to hear him talk on many different things. While trump appears to be a lunatic the majority of the time, some of his commentary is fairly interesting. In particular, some of Trumps approaches to foreign policy are surprising.

For instance, Trump mentions a lot about how the military is spread all over the globe in various places. He mentions how we are investing pur military in places like South Korea and get nothing monetary in return. Sure, our military should be in close reach to our allies, but shouldn't we get something in return? In essence, Trump made the case that countries like South Korea should pay America to protect them...... Crazy but a pretty novel idea. I know someone probably thought of this before, but its interesting to here a candidate think this way, regardless of the implications of such actions.

Another
thing Trump discusses is the promotion fair trade with China. Hypothetically, if the Chinese were to require fair trade practices, they would no longer be able to produce goods at artificial prices. China artificial prices are primarily based on the ridiculously cheap labor the population provides that is a safe haven for corporations. While I may not know a lot about economics, from a purely speculative perspective, requiring China to play fairly would lower the incentive for corporations to consider China for investment and or transition its manufacturing into better quality/ more valued industries to gain a better return. A product of such actions would be better paying jobs for Chinese workers. So is trump an advocate for human rights? I know this is a stretch, but this is interesting coming from such a strange candidate.


Overall, ithink this election is primarily focused on the economy and income inequality. My perspective is that at the heart of this discussion is the question on how corporations are to be perceived in society. The fancy name for this is corporate personhood .

On one hand corporations provide tremendous benefits to society such as tax revenue, jobs and various products. Likewise, they can be destructive when considering things such as poor wages, polluting the environment and special interest groups.

Ultimately, Trump and Bernie I feel are the only two candidates that addressed this issue. While neither of them created a "corporate constitution" , both candidates realize its impact on society.

this question has been going on since the recession. The tarp fund is an example of this dilemma. Should they be protected or fail? What priorities do these entities get over over societies?

Trump & Sanders won the New Hampshire primary. I think it'll all come down to them.

It's pretty insane somehow, if it comes down to that you'll get a vote if you want to go more left than ever (?) before or if you want a person like Trump as President.

To me, if I had no knowledge of how much support these people have I would've thought Sanders would insta win that, because who would ever vote for somebody like Trump. But oh well, Americans

I wonder which camp is bigger: People who think "socialists" are bad or people who do not want a person like Trump.

You have extreme politics over there. All we have around here is that the main stream political parties come closer and closer to each other and end up having issues making it clear where a difference between them even is.

Trump presents an extreme sense of nationalism which really interests people. And I can say for a fact that the poor people won't be voting for Trump (repealing Obamacare, which is actually a pretty big disaster but it does benefit the poor a lot. There are far better ways to deal with insurance).

now I admit I don't know the details of how "obamacare" works, but to me it sounds like a good idea: Provide health care to everyone.
How do you think could that be done in a better way?

Obamacare is a convoluted mess that improves on a convoluted mess of a healthcare system but makes it an even bigger convoluted mess. Is it better than what we had before? Absolutely. But we can do much better, and we need to.

How is it better? HOW? I've heard all the crap from both sides about how good/bad it is, but I've yet to see any affect on our health system for the better.

15 million people who were previously uninsured are now insured. You can no longer be denied benefits for pre-existing conditions. Those sound like improvements to me.

Yeah I dunno numbers anymore, but I remember reading about it in simple terms like this:
Before the new insurance stuff you basically had a considerable amount of Americans that had no health insurance at all. If they get sick and don't have money handy then ... I dunno what then. Probably nothing good.

The fact that it is a convoluted mess... well that is certainly a point that can be improved. Albeit it isn't an easy task, I dunno of any "easy" insurance system^^

A raw copy-paste from a conversation I had today.

So, ever listen to "Alestorm"?

I don't think so.

"Pirate metal"

Nope.

Haha, they should have played at the superbowl. Better fit than Beyonce or Coldplay. Coldplay is good but not for a "football" venue, what with the target audience being beer-drinking rednecks. Was a good complimentary band to Beyonce, but she also was very "there only for variety", even though sadly it was considered the better of the two performances by popular opinion, that is just because of the sheer numbers following the pop culture trends.

I heard she wore something to support the Black Panthers

And people say all whites are racist... it's ******* laughable, how a situation like that occurs, and that claim is still made. Like, a superbowl caters to a diversity just so it isn't boycotted by those influenced under blacklivesmatter, does a great job of it by contrasting Coldplay to Beyonce, and the popular opinion still favors her performance, all things considered. White privilege indeed. Per-population-percent, they have much more influence over media than they should (a 30% population still deserves individual rights for sure, but wanting 50% of publicity and influence in media and politics mean they want a 1.3 stake per person in America for every 1 that another demographic gets?), which is fine because it isn't a war over who has more influence, but they are acting like it is a war and they are oppressed. They are not just equal, but they are legitimately equally standing in a competitive ground, they need no assistance broadcasting or achieving equality, they already have influence and equality. it isn't a war and sad that it would be made to seem that way.

It really is.

If anything, the war that exists, is pretty much between "affluent" and "lower-income". Most incomes only have enough income to barely make it by and no way to afford even basic necessary care for health and investment and education purposes, while higher incomes can afford basic needs and comfortable living for a career that isn't that impressive and mostly-inherited.

I hope I Never have to work minimum wage again. We went through too much **** to get paid so ******* little and have our hours unnecessarily docked.

I am all for capitalism, it should be encouraged to make business and technology thrive, but they still shouldn't be rewarded for being rewarded. It's like, you are rich, so let's keep you even richer. In Reagen's term, he had to open tax breaks for businesses just because they were taxed so much to pay for infrastructure and such, that it was cheaper for them to pay less taxes by making less money, so it was more cost effective not to be big. That was ridiculous. Likewise, the opposite extreme is ridiculous, providing so many benefits that they have no motivation to do too terribly much. At the same time, career politicians do nothing fancy, to deserve 6 digit figures, when they deserve the kind of pay my brother gets for experienced skilled labor, 52k yearly and basic health insurance. Instead, they get 80k introductory and full government funded healthcare.

Which is complete bullshit.

Meanwhile, Japan encourages less frivolous yet more comfortable spending, and Germany even pays businesses a lot per-person that they employ at least 28 hours a week, because it is cheaper than paying people the equivalent in welfare. And their politicians accept moderate wages. This is ridiculous the way things are ran, and people are psychotic worrying about abortion. Michigan just let their people be poisoned by water that they accepted tax money to upkeep infrastructure to provide water for, and their bigger focus was to pass laws to ban oral and anal sex. Like, wtf, are they retarded, they wasted their time for something that will ultimately get shot down in court once LGBT challenge it.

Michigan had always been a fucked state.

America is going to end up a 2nd world, possibly 3rd world nation, and it is quite literally their fault. They are going to blame the politicians, which are to blame, but in reality it's a democracy and they were too busy with race wars and abortion, to care about the actual budget and politicians they elected for the most retarded reasons.

If everyone minded their own business and left connotation of places it has no business being in anyway we'd all be a lot better off.

But hey, while Germany is enjoying it's status as a 1st world nation, while the whole EU works well enough together to provide the foundation for the 1st world future, at least they will be talking about how quaint America's politics for governing abortion and racial-equality. Kind of like how we look at how Iran's laws are quaint now, I mean look at them, underdeveloped, not really making progress, still enforcing holy laws and status quo culture, really quaint. That's us in 20 years.

That's kind of us right now.

Politically ignorant, financially stone-age, and generally dysfunctional. Right now, we are only the top world economy, because of legacy. We are still riding off of the gap we created in the 50s-80s. Fell in the 80s, got a ******* grip in the 90s, ******* lost it, and have been tumbling since. Still on top, because we have a long way to fall. Once we fall below another nation, it will keep getting worse because America is ignorant and won't know how to handle it, then it will keep falling past another and another and it's language and currency will be replaced by another as the global standard and we will be equivalent to scandinavia or hungary, as far as only having an economic influence enough to provide maybe a few goods to the world while mostly trading with ourselves again. Pfft, with political instability, when people go insane that we fell so far, states might try to opt to disband and govern themselves, though very shittily. Scary ******* future.

Very ******* scary.

blacklivesmatter protesters, being twats and blocking major roads and roughing up white citizens for just being white, is deplorable. At the same time, check this **** with the police retaliation to it. A cop that shot a black guy and was griefed over it, is pressing charges against his estate over "traumatic anguish". Like it isn't his paid job to contractually have to handle situations like that. And the cop that shot Tamir Rice, the city is suing for ambulance expenses, like the government doesn't tax citizens to provide emergency response, you can't charge a criminal for having to shoot said criminal, shooting him was your civic duty and so was providing medical treatment (which failed to actually accomplish the saving of their life might I add). This ****, gives them something to complain about, and is very wrong on the grounds of "if you challenge police, the police simply target you", that is wrong for any race because then anyone that challenges the police state will just be jailed because they can, that is how North Korea runs for fucks sake. If citizens are being criminals they should be prosecuted as such, but police shouldn't be able to take action on people based solely on whether they questioned police authority or not. If we need any reform, it isn't ethnic rights, those are legally established. What we need, is a legal reform, where the police cannot challenge citizens for certain things, and have to act with consistency for everyone, so they either challenge everyone with lawsuits for their expenses, or they challenge absolutely nobody at all. They can't do so only when they can use it as ammo against scrutiny.

Quite the transition. Some excellent points are made here though, too bad those points aren't going anywhere ever.

Right?

Another thing, while we are talking about non-racial police reform, what the **** about prison systems?

Okay, so states are starting to drug test welfare applicants. Well, studies show that 300,000 dollars is spent by states to test, when only 800 applicants are testing positive.

Well, it surely isn't ******* fair to allow them to do drugs, but not the working class that pays for them, so you literally can't just accept that you shouldn't test them. If that were the case, what would really be cost-saving, is to not drug test welfare applicants, because you can just not have welfare, not have to spend money on the program at all, and pocket it all and let them starve. We aren't doing that though, because that is as ******* heartless, as only testing workers and not welfare recipients is ******* inconsiderate.

Well, what they should do, is just reform the drug system and prison system.

For one, Marijuana is very much a non-issue and should be legal. Quit trying to enforce something that ain't ever going to happen.

For two, non-violent drug users can face decades worth of prison sentences at the moment. In prison, general population. That is absolutely unbelievable, expensive ******* pets is all they are. CREATE STATE REHABS. Those tried of non-violent drug crimes, go to a similar setting to prison but not prison, mandatory 24/7 stay but do "rehab-like activities", isn't considered a felony anymore, and those that aren't tried of drug-crime can still volunteer to enroll in these facilities because they aren't prisons.

Then, magically, the welfare thing isn't such a problem, you still test them for hard drugs, and you can always tell them that they test positive they can still make good on it by enrolling in a state-rehab and still receive some benefits to take care of dependents to be redirected to next of kin.

Jesus ******* Christ this isn't that hard people. Balancing SMNC was harder than these American Politics are. Try something new and successful for the love of mercy...

tl;dr: black activists are bad, capitalism is good.

Honestly, you make other, decent points (marijuana, etc), but your overriding rhetoric is incredibly biased towards a pro-police situation and against the reality that is life for minorities in America. The overall consensus (and indeed system, cross-state, up to and including the Supreme Court) is incredibly in favour of the white middle class. Well, and the plutocrats, but it's less of a racial divide there.

I was anti police, and the overall consensus is definitely not in favor of the majority of the population is the problem, idk if that's the "middle class" as the middle class is usually a unicorn. There is a definitive gap, between homeowner with comfortable budget, homeowner on the brink of losing their home and most the junk they are still making payments on, scrubs that are living paycheck to paycheck, and those with 6 digit salaries. Like, the guys making paycheck to paycheck, with no equity built up at all, are the definitive majority, and definitely not the favored one in the wake of a crummy ACA system. The lower class is at least given a break as far as government taxing and usually aren't allowed to starve (usually) but aren't given any real help to get out of their rut either and are definitely not favored either. If by middle class, you mean lower-upper class, then you are still wrong because they are almost ignored by the system for the good or the bad. Politics themselves are game to just the rich, through PAC or career politicians themselves, the uninvolved sort-of-high paid citizens are simply vocal yet uninvolved and removed, and the lower end of the spectrum is vast yet fairly oppressed with fairly dumb policing and laws. Nonviolent drug crimes landing you decades in prison with general population, is a testament to that, much less suing families of low-income criminals who were shot recently, that is just in poor taste.

As far as middle class goes though, you are either affluent enough to be lower-upper class, or if you make the 24k~40k yearly bracket, you are the highest per-income taxed target and by the end of it all don't get by much better than the low-no income. It's basically just like socialism until you make enough to see anything higher than. It's socialism, that mostly-ignores the upper bracket. lower-class-socialism beneath an upper-class captialism.

I wish people approached the issues of police accountability and minority equality on a state to state, or hell, city to city basis. It really depends on the area.

I've been in poor areas where minorities and whites are on even terms, areas where the minorities are actively discriminated against, and a unique case where a poor minority(Hasidic Jews) holds all of the political power in a large area and policing power within their sub-town area.

There are areas where police are trustworthy and doing their jobs as well those where they're an active source of corruption.

People always seem to assume that theirs is the most common situation regardless of the reality. The US is ******* HUGE. Even if one is more common and you can prove it, there could still be a far-from negligible amount of the other that shouldn't be ignored. Without limiting your stance to an area and generalizing across the US, you're ignoring important facts about the reality of the situation.

Would still fall under "consistency". Reform, would include, standards of consistency for police enforcement. If it isn't an already engaging threat, don't fire on it. Take cover and use the loudspeaker.

Falls under the same category, as charging the estate of the person the police shot dead. If the police want to shoot someone dead, as a taxpayer funded department of emergency services, they should foot the bill of whom they shoot. Encourages police financially to even attempt to use nonlethal force then, because it costs them nothing right now to deal with everything in a bloodbath if they wish.

Consistency. If police are documented, and recorded, about how they handle every action, and held to handle every action consistently, different people, same action, same response, then none of this would even be an issue. Shoot once fired upon, warn otherwise, use nonlethal force in the presence of nonlethal force, whether arrest or warn for something, do it for every individual each time they do the same things.
---------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, who else is excited for some long-awaited Syrian action? If a country is going to cause that much hostility even outside of it's own borders, it definitely is overdue to be set straight and established a non-hostile leadership. I know personally, I couldn't care less about Oil, and less about Islam. I don't care that South-Asians eat rice bare-handed, simply fresh out of attention for that sort of petty thing, none of my business. All I care about, is factions that are actively seeking combat and attacks against other groups that weren't looking for a fight. Paris, western nations, native Syrians, and Kurds included. If they won't stop attacks, then show them what a militant/police offense really looks like, maybe it'll stop being as fun and they will submit to live-and-let-live rationale. Were it the Irish Republican Army, i'd feel the same way, when they commit violence then they are due their arse whooping.

I just want to say that I am changing my opinion on gun control laws. I no longer want them to be extremely strict, in fact I want them to stay exactly the same and I have statistics to support this.

As you can see from the below chart, the correlation coefficient is too small to draw a strong conclusion about gun ownership and gun crime, in fact it's a negative slope which means more ownership deters crime in some situations. This chart does not include suicide, which is a huge part.


Also:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ip-dont-have-more-gun-murders/article/2573353

It's a good read.

Wait, the facts support the position I've held for years? NO WAY. I thought I was just stubbornly beating my head against a brick wall without reason! How intriguing.....

/s