Total posts: 2,472
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I'm playing Devil's Advocate when I say this, but what about the fact that homosexuals are more likely to get HIV from their sex habits? Do you think banning homosexuality can help quell the HIV epidemic within the homosexual community?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But if they neglect your laws and have kids, you kill them
No I wouldn't.
I don't see how you are going to impose this on other countries peacefully.
We lead by example, and we state it's to eliminate abortions, which given that the countries that are poor are pro life (by coincidence), they want to eliminate abortions and they ought to support this policy to eliminate the abortions that happen illegally.
Forcing people to do things with their bodies (you know, the whole reason the Libertarian party supports abortion)
Pro life libertarians exist, they have a whole website for them. On abortion and preventing it, it has to be done, so I would be statist on that issue. I'm libertarian-conservative in general though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
And these stats can vary and there isn't strong data correlating to this.
The data is in the links.
Wanted pregnancies and such
If a pregnancy is wanted, you just get the vastectomy reversed when your ready for it.
They need to be mature and do it. If they don't, they deserve to have a baby when options are available.
The thing is, they would have abortions illegally. It's better to prevent these abortions by contraception, like mandatory vasectomies. Then abortions are virtually gone.
No, you have to pay doctors more than a minimal fee if they are going to perform surgery and they cost a lot.
They would get paid adequately. But since they would be doing so many vasectomies per day, the doctor cost can be more spread out amongst the public. 10 vasectomies per day per doctor would make the cost about $150 per vastectomy, yielding a $1500/day pay for the doctor, all while there would be an 85% discount. This is why vasectomies would be cheaper if everyone in the US gets them. If they cost $150/male or $75/person, it would cost about $24 billion, about 5% of what we spend on the military per year. It would also be a one time expense, with nominal extra fees for making sure the youth are sterilized until they are ready to not be.
The same will need to be done with this. It will cost a lot of money and the government can't buy this.
Above shows how cheap for the government it would be to fund.
Yet they are very close behind us catching up quicker and quicker. The only way to stop them is to keep spending where we at now, so we can secure our spot
If China increased their military budget 11% per year for 10 years, it would take about 50 years to catch up to where the US currently is.
Then here is the problem, Russia and NK joins in, along with Iran. Turkey leaves NATO and joins Russia and then boom, a World War started and we all die.
NK isn't a super big threat to NATO. Not even Russia is. Their GDP is less than the state of Texas. So we have a country less than Texas GDP wise, with a stagnant population, and North Korea vs all of NATO, the US, Turkey is probably going to stay in NATO.
Yea but there is that SLIGHT risk that it may happen. Again, that's why Plan B is in effect, so that means that instead of wasting money, you can just buy Plan B
We can't count on Plan B though, even if it's made mandatory. It's easier to dodge a Plan B pill than it is to dodge a worldwide campaign for vasectomies, especially if females, once they find out, decide to go on a sex strike until their boyfriends/husbands get vasectomies. Then guys would get the vasectomies just to be able to have sex with their females.
Wasn't talking about abortion numbers
What numbers were you referring too?
This would take over 17 years to implement and get fully done
How did you get 17 years? I think it can be done in 5 years.
people can bypass this too
How would they bypass this if the females are like, "Hey you know, it's a good idea to prevent pregnancies. Lets require vasectomies of our males before we have sex with them". Then the males can't legally have sex without getting the surgery done. We can't count on people being responsible. Otherwise, abortions would barely exist.
His(Hitler's) authoritarian style with his "Utopian society," failed miserably
Hitler killed innocents. My policy doesn't kill a single innocent person. If anything, it dramatically reduces a different genocide; the genocide of the unborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My score is in the link below https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=2.63&soc=-2.36. I'd say that I'm a moderate libetarian. I lean right as predicted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's drastically different from China's one child policy. You can still have kids, you just need to pay for a reversal vastectomy every time you want a kid. You claim that it would result in a loss of life. If anything, my policy prevents life from being killed since it prevents unintended pregnancies, and therefore abortions.Just like the China one child policy! Don’t have kids, or we will brutally murder them.
That is totally a libertarian concept
Given that it provides freedom for the unborn by preventing them from existing and therefore, preventing their deaths, I'd say it's libertarian. It also liberates the woman from unintended pregnancy once implemented. It frees people up to do sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Immigration is a different topic to this one.
When they debase Americans' wages and excessively tax them to pay for the vasectomies,
You call a $100 tax per year worldwide "expensive"? It's also just an average based on the country. Richer countries would pay more than poor countries because they tend to have more people and more GDP. It's much cheaper than forcing a woman to have the kid that could have been prevented with a simple vastectomy. Vasectomies are cheaper, safer, and easier than a pregnancy. If we can tell a woman, "You must pay $4000 to have a kid because the alternative is killing them", then we can tell people "You must pay $500 for the vastectomy in taxes because the alternative is killing a baby". There are also so many other benefits besides abortion elimination that are present with this policy, so lets implement it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
because human rights violation?
It is necessary to prevent and end a bigger human rights violation; an unborn genocide.
Increased demand means increased price.
I would want to increase the supply with it. More vasectomy doctors to vasectomized the populace.
Let me guess... This money is going to come from... Lemme get in the Alec mindset here... uhhh... I know! Let's tax something! What should we tax? Uhhh, I am wearing shoes. Tax on shoes? Nah people might just not buy shoes... I know! Let's tax walking! Surgically install a government issued fitbit into everyone's wrist to track the number of steps they take and charge them 2¢ per step.
I don't support a sin tax to pay for this, and if I did, I wouldn't tax walking. I'd rather have the UN pay for it by taxing the countries to end abortion. It would cost about $3.6 trillion, but this cost can be spread over a 5 year period, costing $720 billion/year for 10 years. It still sounds like a lot, but the whole world would be paying for it, so per year it would cost about $100 per taxpayer to pay and abortions get eliminated in the process, the people getting the vasectomies don't have to spend any more money on birth control, they don't have to pay the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to raise a child that doesn't exist because they prevented it's existence from occurring until they were ready for one more kid, if they save tens of thousands of dollars on a kid, $100/taxpayer on average seems like a small price to pay for such huge benefits to the economy and in terms of preventing 40 to 50 million illegal, unsafe abortions per year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So, 26% of the population will hit that 100 mark in 2 years according to your numbers. If they are having sex every 2 months, they hit that mark in under 17 years.In fact, 26% of couples are doing the once a week and some even two months according to the doctor involved
Plan B is supposed to be used as a last resort in case the condom is ineffective at performing itself, it should not be used every time sexual intercourse is done upon someone. A condom is there to protect 99% of the timeNot all women use Plan B when they have to, so we can't depend on that.
It's mandatory in 24 states and required by law
Have abortions been eliminated from these states? No. Because sex ed isin't 100% effective. It can be used in addition to my policy though.
The government then has to do the followingA) Pay the doctorsB) Upgrade equipmentC) Buy facilitiesD) Direct people to go and do this if it is a LAW
I think the doctor payment is what the $1000 fee would cost. Equipment doesn't have to be upgraded, only made more numerous. Facilities could be bought, and when this project ends, they could be sold at a profit, How is bullet point D a problem?
Universal health care would be able to solve all of this, and if you simply redirected the funds here to UHC, then this would not be a problem, and could be a policy you can include giving more access to everyone
I'd be fine with adding this policy on to UHC/Medicare for all.
China's military is rapidly growing despite our spending 2x.
As of right now, their military spending isn't that high. When it becomes comparable to NATO's military spending, then we can increase our spending. As of right now, we don't need a military 5x the size of China's.
They are competitive with us now within 30 years of time from a modern standpoint. They also have more troops, and near equal in everything. War in China would destroy us, and we need to defend against them, and not expose ourselves as vulnerable. Then if NATO happens to join, it's WWIII, idiotic.
If NATO joins, then it would help the US beat China. Also, if this becomes a mandatory policy worldwide, then it would weaken China because they wouldn't reproduce anymore since the Chinese couldn't afford to pay the huge reversal fee that has to be paid ever time before they have a kid. If China's not reproducing anymore, it makes them dependant on labor from other countries that can afford the reversal fee, making them have to abandon communism in order to attract western migrants; the only people who can afford this process. The existing Chinese benefit because they could have as much sex as they want and not get the girl pregnant. At the same time, it forces China to abandon communism if they wish to attract migrants from around the world.
Also you are not saving lives. You are destroying lives
The policy would save lives by preventing the fetus to be formed, only to be killed. Preventing a life from forming is not the same as killing an existing life. Otherwise, priests would be murderers from preventing lives from forming by being abstinent.
Not only that, but accidents do happen no matter what.
After the vasectomy is 2 months old (or the guy ejactulates 20x, whichever is done first, with some guys going further for safety), they could have unprotected sex without even the slightest risk of unwanted pregnancy. The effectiveness rate would be 100%.
You are forming number without any logic or reasoning.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide states that 56 million abortions happen per year worldwide, so I was close. THe cite states:
During 2010–2014, an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurred each year worldwide.
Virtually all of these abortions can be eliminated if this policy goes into effect, preventing tens of millions of deaths annually.
We would still have abortions
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No one ever has sex 100 times firstly
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/07/how-much-sex-should-couples-have/4680968002/ states that the average couple has sex 100x in about 2 years.
Plan B is always effective
Not all females use Plan B though. Making people take a pill every time they have sex to prevent abortions requires that we know when people are having sex. Mandatory vasectomies on the other hand, is a one time surgery that once it's done, it's done and abortions basically end with it, all with unintended pregnancies hitting 0/year.
In the future, condoms will become better overall at preventing.
It's a piece of rubber. I don't know how much it could improve.
If we teach people about it and have sexual education mandatory, then we can inform the public more. Teens want to do it because they are not educated. In Illinois, it is a requirement, and people are informed, which means they know how to practice.
Sexual education is already mandatory. Unintended pregnancies still occur. It's easier to provide vastectomies to people than to educate the youth on some topic that isin't 100% effective.
Even when they are educated about sex safety, many teens want sex without protection. Mandatory vasectomies are a good way to allow them to do unprotected sex, which a lot of people want.This is simply lies
How so?
But the start would be expensive. It would take time to lower the prices too, and even so, the equipment will still stay the same
If the supply skyrockets by the government hiring doctors to do this, then the cost would stay at about $1000/vastecomy.
So cut our national defense from threats around the world
The threats that attack the US don't need a military the size of the US's. If we cut our spending by 50%, our military spending would still be like double China's, and we are in NATO, so NATO would help protect us if we get attacked. We shouldn't be spending as much as we currently do on the military anyway, but this is off topic. We would be preventing 40 million annual abortions from this policy. People also can have more sex.
Then it is authoritarian. Authoritarian policies are god awful
I'm not a statist on most things, just a few, and probably less than either of the 2 parties. Since you support big government on the military, we both support big government/statism in some areas. I'd rather use the government to save people's lives if it's in a cheap, effective way, not to take and destroy them from a big military that alienates us from the world and doesn't defend freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If we can't prevent people from having premarital sex, I think making vasectomies mandatory worldwide would help reduce abortions by 90%. It can, and should be done in a painless, safe way. Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How would you punish it? Also, it would happen illegally and it's common enough, plus it might reduce the desire to have sex because people can get the urges out from the porn, rather than a real girl, resulting in less abortions.1.Ban Porn
make a punishment for premarital sex
I'm waiting until marriage, but how would you punish and catch people doing premarital sex?
and get rid of degeneracy
What counts as degeneracy and how would you get rid of it?
people used to not treat sex as the end all,be all
People were scared of God. But now, society has become less religious, so people are being more sex obsessed. We can't ban sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
stop making society revolve around one thing and one thing only--> sex.
I would like that, but how would you change what most people value?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Condoms when used correctly are 99% effective. I'll take my odds at 99% versus surgery. Even when not, they are 91% effective. Even so, if they break, or ineffective, Plan B is a last resort for women that prevents this
If you have sex 100x, then over time, there is a chance that you end up getting her pregnant.
It is all about educating the youth about sexual safety overall.
Even when they are educated about sex safety, many teens want sex without protection. Mandatory vasectomies are a good way to allow them to do unprotected sex, which a lot of people want.
If every men gets a Vascetomy that is safe at the age of 40, that would cost the government 1000 for quality vascetomies. If you multiple that by the abotu 200M men, that is 200B dollars wasted, and probably more too.
It probably would be less. Vasectomies are rare though, so the demand influx would help reduce the price. Currently they are expensive because they are rare and because of that, doctors who do them wouldn't have to charge as much.
Although lets say that it does $200 billion for the USA. We can raise that money by cutting military spending by 50%, which raises $350 billion, and the extra $150 billion can go towards a tax cut. Also, it would be a one time expense, with small matience fees by comparison, so most of the $200 billion can go towards another tax cut.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I hope God doesn't exist, but in reality, I'm not sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The 2nd amendment is 1 example of where constitutional law and states rights come into conflict. The 2nd amendment forces states like CA and NY to allow guns. This is a violation of states rights. But as someone who doesn't care about states rights and does care about getting policy implemented, I want to force anti gun states to allow guns because on guns, individual freedom to own guns outweighs state's rights to take them away.
Why should a piece of land have rights anyways?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
What doesn't make sense is this:
GOP be like:
"We want states rights to everything"
And
"We want the constitution, which takes away states rights"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I doubt it. People in poor countries tend to be pro life, Africa and Latin America treat the whites there pretty well, and they can control their immigration policies, so I doubt that the people in these regions would be that upset about mandatory vasectomies. It would reduce their poverty and they get more sexual freedom since there would be less holding them back from having consensual sex.Don't you think there are poor countries whose people would rather die resisting an invasion of whatever power was trying to implement this rather than to submit to the extinction of their collective national bloodlines?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
So what if it's unnatural? Your computer is unnatural. Yet God (if he exists) gave us earth's resources and hopefully wants us to urbanize and develop it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This law is so sexist! Women should get their tubes tied instead.
A vasectomy is safer, cheaper, easier and less painful than getting your tubes tied. It's also reversible when the couple is ready for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Oh yeah, and what are the penalties for not letting the government snip your pecker?
Why would anyone resist? It would be done in a painless manner and once your done, you just have to ejaculate enough times to get the remaining sperm out, and then you could have sex with no protection and not get the girl pregnant. You could then get even more sex, since there would be less holding you back, so in the long term, the guy benefits. When your ready for kids, you get the vasectomy reversed for a little bit to cause a kid to form and then you get vastectimized again to prevent future unwanted pregnancies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
A pack of condoms at the drugstore sounds over a trillion dollars cheaper.
Condoms don't always work in preventing pregnancy. One condom fail and the girl might get an abortion, which is what should be prevented.
Created:
Posted in:
As a pro lifer, mandatory vasectomies worldwide I think as of right now isn't a bad idea. You guys may think I'm joking, but I'm not. It would reduce the number of worldwide abortions by 40 million per year. Africa's and Latin America's abortion rate has barely been going down, and their pro life laws haven't been working in eliminating abortions, plus the people there haven't been using birth control which isn't really 100% effective. Since they won't be abstinent, I guess well have to make vasectomies mandatory worldwide if we wish to eliminate over 90% of abortions worldwide.
Vasectomies are reversible when the couple is ready to have kids and the fact that they cost money would prevent poor people form having kids, therefore reducing worldwide poverty drastically.
So the pros to mandatory vasectomies worldwide are:
-An end to the vast majority of abortions.
-A reduction in overpopulation.
-Less poverty worldwide, since low income people can't afford to get the vasectomy reversed, therefore they have less kids without abortions.
What are your thoughts DARTers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
If John and Mike were the only two people in the world, then inflation would make the 50c as valuable as the dollar.
Assuming no inflation. Basicly, if 2 people's lives get better, with one person benefiting more since they earned it by contributing to society significantly, or neither person getting a better life. I'd pick the former situation.
If a poor person is employed by a more powerful company, then their wellbeing and decisions are predicated upon the judgment of that company.
The poor person is probably fine with that, otherwise they would switch jobs to something that pays them better or start their own business so they can hire other people. There should be less regulations so this is easier to do for businesses.
If everything you contribute to the world is dictated by someone else, and all you can focus on is survival, would that not feel like a pretty meaningless life?
I doubt it. Low income people have lives outside of work, so they can use that to hang out with friends. They also can start their own business if they wanted. I would encourage them to do that to create more jobs and to reduce unemployment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Tomorrow I will be mostly Sikh.
I don't know too much about them. Sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
I don't get it, if anything wouldn't giving $10,000 to 100 random people even out the wealth, rather than widening the gap?
No. It supplies everyone with $10,000 extra dollars if they are lucky enough. Why do people say income inequality is bad? If John has $1 and Mike has $3, that's better off than if both people had 50 cents because there is more overall wealth.
It's about how people feel meaning based upon how much influence and power they have in their own decisions and how socially valued they are.
I'm pretty sure poor people don't want money to get more influence and power in society. They want to survive.
If a small group of billionaires have such an outsized influence that the ideas and decisions of the poorer group are ultimately inconsequential, then their lives will start to seem pointless whatever their absolute level of wealth is.
I don't see this happening. Poor people still value their lives. Everyone who is not suicidal values their lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
I'd rather increase the absolute level of wealth in society. If $10,000 went randomly out to 100 people, assuming no inflation, they are more likely to go to the poor than the rich. The way to get rich isn't by making the rich poor. It's by getting the poor richer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
How is Christianity superior to other religions?The Christian religion is reasonable and logical and I argue necessary in making sense of existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I would say that since Richard Dawkins is the most proud to be atheist that I know, I think he has a bias. Other factors might be at play, such as atheists tend to live in wealthy areas, producing higher education, and therefore generating smart people.
It's not education -> secularism.
It's more like secularism -> education I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Why? I'm basically in the middle of you and Mopac on the religious scale.And anyone who admits to having a vacillating nature would hardly be worthy of making valued judgments about anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The only people who are going to claim that one religion is right over the others are those with a bias. Religion switching is rare unless it's from some other religion to a christian one, or from christianity to atheism/agnosticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@Salixes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MamaBear
What happens when some methed up student/faculty member/etc decides to take said consenting teacher's firearm?
I don't think students have the will to grab a teacher's gun. At my house, there aren't guns, but there are knives. They are out in the open, anyone can grab them and use them to do damage. Yet, stabbings don't occur in my house. They almost never occur because it turns out people don't want to murder each other with knives. If families, who don't necessarily get along don't want to murder each other with weapons that are easy to get, I doubt students that respect rules and teachers would even get the gun from the teacher, let alone shoot the gun.
Created:
Posted in:
I honestly think voluntary conversion therapy is religious freedom. Some LGBT people don't want to be that way because of the bible. Banning it for consenting people is a violation of the first amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think I'm gonna tag you. Sorry it's late. Check previous post.
Created:
Posted in:
This is going to surprise a lot of people on this site, but if I had to pick between Biden or Sanders, I think I'd pick Sanders because of the following and maybe more:
-He is anti war. Biden supports the military industrial complex.
-He supports weed legalization recreationally, and getting the non violent drug offenders out of jail. I don't think Biden did that.
-He actually cares about America. Biden doesn't give this vibe off as well. He's too establishment.
-Bernie supports medicare for all. Biden doesn't. Libertarians support low taxes. Since medicare for all eliminates private taxes (co pays, premiums, deductibles) and replaces it with a smaller government tax, I should support medicare for all as someone who supports low taxes. I want simple healthcare.
-Bernie Sanders, while old, is actually competent for the job as President. Biden is losing his mind. He talked about his hairy legs. Who does that on camera?
-Even though Biden used to be the VP, even Obama doesn't support Joe running.
If there are any Biden supporters that read this, I want to know why they support Biden over Sanders. There's 2 sides to every coin after all.
I would like to know how Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Do I disagree with him on stuff? Absolutely. We disagree on free college/student debt, on tariffs, the minimum wage, taxes (he wants a progressive tax system, I want to abolish the income tax), we disagree about whether the rich are captains of industry or robber barons, and if Sanders does something I don't like, I'd criticize him for it, but at least Sanders is more competent than Joe Biden, who called some Iowan fat and challenged him to a pushup contest. As someone who can do one arm pushups, I would be willing to take the challenge from Biden in their place.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
If Jesus is, he'd be a hypocrite since the New Testament is pro life.
Created:
Posted in:
"Male privilege is a myth"
"There are some things that guys have the privilege to be better at because they are males. It's biology."
Which is it?
Created:
Posted in:
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) No. In China, they won't let you immigrate unless your ethnically Chinese or marrying a chinese person. Same with many Asian countries. The EU is about the same as the US and the Tasman countries(AUS and NZ). I don't know any societies less racist than the west. I mean, we have the more minorities on a continental basis than the rest of the world combined. There are more Asians in the west than there are westerners in Asia and the same for Africa.
Created:
Posted in:
As someone who has worked a minimum wage job, I think the minimum wage should be abolished. Low income people who are adults should get a better paying job if they aren't satisfied with their current salary. In my situation, I can't work many jobs because of minor working laws that the left wanted to impose.
Currently, you have to be 18 to work any job at any hourly rate. If POTUS, I'd push that down to 15 years if they work in the summer and I'd allow children to work in some jobs. Do I want kids doing dangerous jobs? No, but I'd be fine with a 9 year old being a cashier or some safe job. Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, generally this is made under the assumption of operating in the real world and knowing that welfare won't be abolished.
The only reason why people go on welfare is because they need money. If they can get this money through getting a better job, then no welfare is necessary. People aren't that lazy and they want to work. They just don't know how.
Also, it could be argued that it hurts national unity if you don't learn the native language.
In the long term, this isn't the case. In the 1920s, immigrants interbred with each other, and with native born Americans, and their offspring was American by default. In the short term, there was some cultural division. But this went away as the immigrants assiliminated to their country on their own, interbred with Americans and other immigrants, and the kids ended up being completely assiliminated.
If you can't understand people because they are speaking Portuguese, Spanish, German, Russia, etc, how can you get along with them?
Google translate and their offspring, which tend to be bilingual. Just as people in the 1920s managed to assimilate to the US as time went on, the same thing would happen with this new batch of immigrants.
Second, presumably Americans have been paying into welfare for 10-20 years, whereas immigrants have not.
I don't think every American pays into welfare. Some get it without paying. The people on welfare I don't think get off of it ever generally, but I might be wrong on this.
Generally, retirement is when you have saved up a lot of money and no longer need to work.
Retirement for some people is like that, but retirement is also when someone hits the retirement age and gets social security benefits.
but considering we can't just get rid of welfare
I think it's possible to do this. Low income people merely need to be shown where the better jobs are and they would go to those better jobs, thereby eliminating their need for welfare.
The combination of wage destruction
History confirms that wages won't get destroyed. A common fear of hiring women during WWII was that they would cut wages by 50%. This did not happen, and because of the huge influx of female workers, the US economy skyrocketed. I think a similar thing would happen with these immigrants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I want welfare banned as well, but if your going to advocate for any immigration restrictions, they should be consistently applied to native born citizens and they should be specific. People say we need immigration reform, even though they never specify how they would reform the system. Some common ones that I hear from people against open borders are:
- They must know English: Why? If it's necessary for a job, what if they can get a job without knowing English?
- They must not consume welfare: I understand this, but if we ban welfare for immigrants, we should ban it for everybody to keep it consistent. If welfare is banned, any immigrant here for welfare would leave.
-They must have a job: What if they are retired and don't collect our social security since they didn't pay into it? I'd be fine with immigrants only getting a proportional amount of social security that is proportional to the amount of time they were in the country (ex: If you need 50 years of work to collect social security, and your here for 25 years, you get half a normal social security payment per month)
Any other concerns with open borders?
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
Under our current system, if you win only 60% of the electoral college, you end up winning 100% of a term. Under NPV, if you win 51% of the vote, you get 100% of a presidential term to yourself and your party. Under the pie chart method combined with NPV, if you win 55% of the vote, you get 55% of a term to yourself, instead of 100%. This finally means that our 2 party system can break up and form more ideologically consistent, diverse parties instead of people compromising to one of the big 2. It also means that everyone gets representation in the executive branch for a little bit, depending on how well they performed in the election. Allows ideas to compete to see which one is the best and would help enable a battle of ideas.
Thoughts on it?
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
I'd want open borders along with banned welfare and a pie chart method to allow the conservatives to retain power in a country that would be 60% liberal.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm pro life, but what does the pro life crowd think of mandatory vasectomies? Vastecomonies can be reversed. That would eliminate abortions. It's easier to tell a guy to get a vasectomy than to tell a woman to get her tubes tied or to use a pill that sometimes fails and that does much worse for a woman than what a vasectomy would do to a guy. Thoughts?
Created: