Total posts: 2,799
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sorry for butting in, but let's not call liberals idiots. It is leftists that are the idiots, and I don't think it is good when we conflate the two. Classical liberals are all about freedom, but just believe in some more social spending than conservatives. They are generally fairly rational people.
The leftists are more socialistic fellas that want to nationalize industries and regulate speech. They are silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
They could, but at that point they may as well be their own country. Once you break down the federal government and make it useless, you essentially destroy america. You no longer have 1 country, you have 50 countries.
The Federal Government has the role of coining money, upholding interstate contracts, maintaining an army, and some other powers. It isn't pointless, it just has its own set of roles, while the states, who better know the needs of their people, should have a lot more control.
If the majority of americans feel that way they are free to vote for that. However if they got their way and tore down the federal government, then no one would get to vote for anything any more.
The federal government has roles. It has just way overstepped its boundaries, and I think much of that power should be returned to the states.
I'm glad you approve. The federal government exists to protect and provide services to it's people.
It exists to protect, but providing services should come with an asterisk. It can't just do anything, the states have a lot of responsibility, too. It is a perfectly fine position for you, but not perfectly fine for you to force on me.
You prefer to have unelected CEOs of multinational corporations limit your freedom. I know. As I said, that would be much, much worse.
And the role of organized labor is to combat that. If you want to overregulate and overtax your companies, then so be it. We want job creation. We can earn our living and the government can step in if it needs to. I would just much rather a state government step in. Better than federal tax dollars going to GM bailouts that I don't want or need. I have a lot more control over state politicians to stop that than I do over federal politicians.
It is benefiting. However a prolonged propaganda campaign has convinced people otherwise.
You're open to change my mind. How were they benefiting?
I have yet to really hear of any examples of this though. The ones that typically get pointed to are UK laws, not EU laws. For example right wing idiots like to say that the EU banned using news papers to hold fish and chips. But that was the UK that did that because newspapers are full of poison. They also claimed the EU tried to ban a specific kind of potato chip, which was just a lie.
Forcing countries to take refugees would be one. They see Sweden having a rape crisis and hand grenade attacks, and they don't want that. But the EU forces them to anyway. That is the main one that I think of.
The EU is exactly what you said would be a good thing, independent countries working together. It is a body that negotiates legislation between countries. You are describing the EU as something that would be better than the EU. it is kind of funny.
Not quite. I am saying that how the UK and Greece trade between each other should be left up to the UK and Greece. Instead, you have legislation that applies to all countries regarding tariffs, quotas, etc. They have to balance everyone's interests simultaneously instead of individually, which makes policies less precise in terms of their country's needs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Bu you get to vote for that government. If the people don't like it they can vote in a new one. If you got what you wanted and seriously weakened the government, it would be billionaires and multi-national corporations that would fill the power vacuum. And you would have no say at all in how they used that power. I will take a government I get a vote for over an oligarchy.
But why can't a Californian state government be as huge as they want and you can live there and be "protected from the oligarchy"?
Conservatives don't want your huge spending programs and tax hikes. Why should you force your will on us? If you want the government taking care of you from cradle to grave, that is a perfectly fine position. I want to keep what I earn and make a living for myself with the government not limiting my freedom. I want guns to protect myself and actual freedom of speech. I don't want to subsidize your sanctuary cities.
Lol that is exactly what the EU is. Individual nations that wish to cooperate.
And Britain is leaving because it isn't benefiting from the relationship. Sure, they had the choice to join, but now they are realizing that the EU is able to force them to take actions that adversely affect their country. The EU is a cop out, easy answer to problems that would better be solved by individual pieces of legislation negotiated between countries.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
As I said afterwards, I don't really like Northern Ireland. They have always wanted to stay as part of the UK. I think they will probably be pretty split on their opinions, but they will likely leave because of their close ties to England.
Created:
Although, the only part of Ireland that I care about gained independence. :)
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so a weak and ineffectual government that will allow life to be dominated by the rich and powerful leaving the poor little more than peasants. I'll stick with a government that represents the will of the people.
Lol, what you don't understand is that the will of the people is split. Has the government under Trump been representing your will? No. Did the Obama administration represent my will? No.
Except for swing states, most states have fair majorities for one ideology. Their will is more likely to be represented by their state and local government. Most Californians are liberal. Most people in my state are not. I don't want their large state telling me how to live, but I'm fine with them living how they want to. Why are you anti-choice?
they all benefit.
What does the EU do that couldn't be achieved by individual nations that wish to cooperate? Not much, really.
However, it takes away a lot of power to dissent if you don't wish to follow their rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you also don't like the US senate system? Because they are pretty much the same thing. Each state gets 2 senators. In the EU each state gets 1 council member. It is the same concept.
That's my point. I want the federal government to have very little power. I want most power to be at the state and local levels.
this is the same for any government. The US government takes freedom away from each and every state. But we all know that the states are stronger and better off together than as 50 independent countries. Similarly, the EU members are stronger and more prosperous together than if they were divided. There is always going to be a trade off. But they get way more than they give up.
That depends. Some of the poorer countries benefit from the EU, while the richer ones don't. Like how the Euro worked. The countries with strong currencies adopted currencies with worse values and the countries with higher rates of inflation and unstable currencies were very happy about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well I like federalism, so that is mainly my issue. The fact is that, even if you elect officials, you will still be well outnumbered by other countries' officials. It took power away from British citizens to determine their destiny.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
he didn't obstruct justice. He went along with the impeachment inquiry. He did commit perjury. I don't think most people would say otherwise. But he lied about a blow job. Trump has lied about literally hundreds of topics including extorting foreign leaders to interfere in american elections. The 2 cases are in no way similar.
The obstruction of justice charge was brought because he lied to subordinates and friends about the scandal, supposedly hoping they would also deny it at the hearings. https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/obstruction-of-justice
He abused the power of his office for personal gain and to interfere in an election. He then committed another crime by trying to cover it up. Of course I think he should be impeached.
He is making less money than before he took office, so personal gain is quite questionable. By interfering in an election, you are referring to him looking into corruption.
I don't. I have no issue with Biden's corruption being exposed. The problem is that Biden's corruption is totally legal. I really wish it weren't, but sadly it is. Trump's corruption, abuse of power and obstruction of justice are all very much illegal.
That isn't illegal? WTF?
They should, but if fox news gets their way, about 45% of them will believe the trump's lies that he didn't commit the crimes that we have infinitive proof he committed.
Well, the people should also know when Trump does corrupt things. I hate the bias among networks. I bet CNN under-reported on the Clinton Foundation corruption as well.
I don't think Clinton should have been impeached and I don't think Trump should now.lol so if someone lies about sex, they should be removed from office. If someone abuses the power of their office to smear a political opponent and interfere in an election, then engages in a cover up and obstructs justice, that shouldn't be punished?You have insane priorities.
No, I specifically said that neither should be impeached, as shown above. I set the bar very high for impeachable offenses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It was actually a colony for quite some time. So, to say that everyone who came here was an immigrant is essentially a lie. It was a British colony and British people that moved there weren't immigrating. But those are just semantics.
Before America became a country, there were people here. They had a backwards culture and constantly killed each other. We civilized this place and brought our culture and made a country.
The 1607-1776 people MADE the country, so...... not really irrelevant.
It was influenced greatly by people before 1776, but after that it became American culture. Native American culture has very little to no influence on the values we have, so their culture is irrelevant, while the settlers' is not.
I never said that people who settled after 1776 weren't immigrants. The whole point of this was to say that not all immigrants are the same and that we have had periods in which we didn't accept large amounts of immigrants for long periods as we have since the 1960s.
Tell me, how are 17th and 18th century British colonists or even 19th century Irish immigrants the same as 21st century Mexican immigrants? Are their cultures the same? Are their incentives for coming to our country the exact same? Are their relative education levels to native citizens the same? Are they learning our language at the exact same rates? Are they assimilating the same? Are America's social, economic, and political climates the exact same as 200-300 years ago?
Likely none of these are the same between groups, so of course not all immigrants are equal and not all will assimilate as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
I haven't researched it much, either. I will not be able to endorse any Brexit deal or say that it will go well in practice. I simply believe that it has potential to be great move for Britain.
But I have issues with international organizations like the EU. Essentially, why should a large group of people that you didn't elect get to make so many changes in your life? You had no consent over their election or appointment and they have very little accountability to you as a result.
Created:
-->
@David
Why should Clinton have been impeached?
I think it should only be used in super extreme circumstances.
Created:
I don't think Clinton should have been impeached and I don't think Trump should now.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Clinton lied about sex. Trump abused the power of his office in an attempt to extort a foreign country to smear his political rival. Its like comparing a guy who jay walked to a rapist. They are not even remotely similar cases.
Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury. You were against his impeachment.
You keep mentioning how Trump dared to obstruct justice. You are for impeachment.
hmmmm....
Also, why do you keep complaining about Trump exposing Biden's corruption? The American people should know if a presidential candidate is corrupt or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I still can't believe the UK voted socialism out of their country.
<3
I never thought I would say this, but...I'm proud of the Brits. Did something good for once.
Now onto Brexit!!!!
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your post also conveniently ignores that the republican party impeached clinton for lying about sex. We have been down the road of partisan impeachment.
Committing perjury, yes.
Luckily, this is not a partisan impeachment. We are 100% certain that trump has committed crimes and abused his office. The fact that the republicans are too frightened of trump to admit it just shows how weak they are.
Were the Democrats too afraid of Clinton to impeach him for his crime?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It used to mean Indo- Iranian.
"The word Aryan was consequently used even more restrictively – and even less in keeping with its Indo-Iranian origins – to mean "Germanic", "Nordic" or Northern Europeans.[16]"
However, in the 18th and 19th centuries, it began to change in meaning. I was referring to the currently understood meaning.
Our culture began when our country began, sir. We weren't an immigrant country, because immigration assumes you are moving from one country to another, not tribal wilderness.
noun
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It is an assumption I accepted for this conversation. Personally from what I found wages barely drop and the positive outweigh the negatives.
It depends on how many workers of that type go into that market. Most are unskilled laborers, so they will have a larger effect on them while high-skill wages will mostly go untouched. You also have to consider changes in working conditions for construction and agricultural work.
Immigration can be good if you are accepting workers who will go into fields for which you have a shortage and won't go directly on welfare.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Bernie says workers programs import immigrants that depress American wages. The obvious take-away from this is that Immigrants are not only attained through worker programs so they all must depress wages.
Are you against some immigration and worker programs to an extent because of said depression of wages?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I don't believe in basing arguments off the Bible or God. That is most people that are politically engaged. Religious arguments are meant for inter-religious dialogue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You are terribly ignorant. The uber wealthy are paid multi billions of dollars out of the taxpayers purse every year. Wake up and smell the corruption.
Are you talking about businesses getting subsidies/bailouts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Well, I am in favor of reducing welfare, but I also want people who have actually paid into it to get it (ie not an immigrant who got here two weeks ago).
If rich people are getting welfare(I have seen them take advantage of rent control), that is a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Well, I am not ethang and I don't argue like the ultra right religious people. Religious arguments have no place in a discussion of policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Lmao, you know how I love turtles!
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, when they act like elitists who won't even acknowledge how the other side thinks or feels, they have to realize they are going to win. You can't just call the other side idiots and expect that to go well- Hillary is proof of that.
Then you have people that are "so right" that they don't even have to explain their position. Look to 99% of climate change debates, and you'll see that those in favor of government intervention are never willing to have a conversation.
They prefer to sit in their ivory towers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The culture of our country, yes.
In terms of what Hitler called the Aryan race, it was pale, blond, blue-eyed strong Germans. Basically what you said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Where have you seen liberals screeching the conservative prayer to expand corporate welfare?
Now you are shifting this to be only about corporate welfare, when I began by saying 'social safety net'. They are expanding the social safety net by many measures, most specifically, government-run healthcare.
In terms of corporate welfare, look no further than Obama.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Oh, I see.
You have no evidence and are merely pulling this out of your arse.
Good day, sir!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Your culture and social safety net only exist for business owners to make many quick bucks.
Not really. If it were true that the social safety net was for business owners, then why do all of you liberals support expanding it? Are you corporate shills?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If it is true, then there should be plenty of evidence of it.
Please provide some :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I have nothing to prove.
Well you stated something that was blatantly false, so you kinda do. Either that or admit you were being hyperbolic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
That won't make billions for the 1%.
Two things:
1. High-skill immigrants will lead technology advances that will make them money.
2. I will not screw over our culture and social safety net for business owners to make a quick buck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Get your fascist mates to prove liberals are stupid, constantly they prove their own stupidity.
I don't believe that most liberals are stupid. I believe they are wrong and perhaps misguided. Each side has their share of idiots, though.
I never said I believe that liberals in general are stupid. You said that most conservatives are fascists. Therefore, you have something to prove and I do not.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I obviously can't read what the article said(there is a monthly limit). Could it be that they are mostly single-issue voters? Immigration is a very big issue currently, and that is his main issue. I could see people that only care about fixing our immigration system voting for him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And lets legalise slavery rather than the pseudo slavery we are forced to accept now.
Or just let in high-skill immigrants that will make good wages and won't cost us money in welfare.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I'm not paying a dollar to read that. Could you, perhaps, explain the article in your own words?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Most conservatives are fascists.
Prove it, no balls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
If they are on net providing more labour at a lower cost then they're not a public charge. If anything, the conservative argument is that we should forgo certain economic gains in order to preserve a certain culture, and as a kind of indirect welfare for the native working class.
The fact is, if they are going to take welfare money, they will be a public charge. People we let in to do menial labor won't make a lot of money and will qualify for welfare programs. I would say we should prohibit them from accepting any social assistance for 5-10 years after entry.
It is a form of protectionism for the native working class, yes.
Keep in mind, the conservative movement is only partially about economics. There is also the entire social aspect. We support gun rights, free speech, and others. The immigrants we are letting in do not appreciate and share those values. I don't know your specific thoughts on those, but that will be a consequence of your dream of borderless America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Insulated within your bubble with your crew.But constantly ridden with angst and paranoia.Fearful of others who might look and sound different, who might burst your bubble.That age worn superiority complex.Worry not.For the bleached blond demi-god of German descent and his Slovenian Queen shall be your salvation.Immigrants all.Though all immigrants are equal.Some immigrants are more equal than others.
I see another attempt to slander, now specifically mentioning the Aryan race. Apparently not wanting public charges and people who won't assimilate is somehow wrong. That seems rather racist of you to paint non-Aryans as being likely to be public charges who will reject our culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Didn't the courts knock it down?
There haven't really been any major Islamic terror attacks since Trump became president. The only potential one that I can remember at all is the recent Pensacola one.
I want to ban a lot of immigration from countries that have high rates of terrorism because we don't currently have very good ways of vetting people who may be terrorists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The implementation was certainly bad. Some of the countries that were banned are relatively low risk for terrorism and there are some glaring omissions in terms of countries with terrorism risk. I mean, at the very least I'd expect a ban for the country of the nationals that caused 9/11. That and Trump previously calling for a muslim ban certainly does make you think
I would have been okay with him increasing the number of countries involved in the ban. Don't recall him wanting to ban Muslims, but maybe he did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"I only want white public charges. High school educated and low-skill whites are bigly yuge, believe me."
-Donald Trump (Probably)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Been a while, my dude. I trust you are doing well?
I would like to change my profile pic for a month or two and could think of no better person to suggest one.
If you would like to help, ask me any questions that could help narrow it down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I forgot all cultures are exactly the same and people from third-world countries have equal educations and likelihoods of being a public charge.
My feelings don't care about your facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I didn't know that I was paraphrasing Napoleon. It was just what I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
All of you people compare my statements to 1930s politicians and now Napoleon. Can you tell me what is wrong with the comment?
I'm not saying they aren't equal in terms of being humans. I'm saying they will have a different impact on assimilation, our economy, and will impact social issues differently. Saying that previous waves of immigrants were beneficial doesn't automatically mean that all immigrant waves will be beneficial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you acknowledge the courts are being used inappropriately, and you want to do absolutely nothing about it?
I believe it is better than manipulating judges with job security concerns.
Even if i accepted that you were right, it expressly says that the weapons are for a well organized militia. That vast, vast, majority of gun owners in the US do not belong to any kind of militia. The 2nd amendment was not intended to apply to them.
It would depend on your definition of "militia" then. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
There is one that says any able-bodied male that can serve in the military.
But don't you pretend to say that abortion is a guaranteed right according to the Constitution, yet there is no mention of pregnancy, abortion, or even how a "right to privacy" would even pertain to that? There is a lot more evidence for gun rights.
Technology has changed too much for this to even matter any more. Drones and MBTs beat red necks with an AR 15.
So maybe rednecks should have drones ;)
3 in 10 adults own a gun. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/
That means there are a minimum of about 7,000,000 adults with access guns. It would be higher because we have more guns than people. We have an active duty military of 1.3 million. Yes, they have advanced technology, but I'd say that a force 5x larger than your military is a heck of a deterrent to take away their rights, wouldn't you agree?
So you are fine with the courts blocking anything progressive, but when they block attempts to attack minorities you consider that abuse?
My point was to avoid the "Muslim Ban" conversation. It was banning immigration from countries with high levels of terrorism, which tend to be Muslim countries. Check out France and tell me Trump's idea was bad.
Trump has had 2 chances to appoint judges that would be fair. He has appointed ideologues both times. He doesn't care about what is right. He only cares about winning. Which is the same reason the republicans have been trying to stack the courts for years.
Why do you think his appointed judges are ideologues? Both sides get their chance to stack the courts. Don't play that partisan game with me, Mr. FDR court-packing scandal. They go back and forth like the legislature, just at different rates.
It was intended to be a slave state where women and natives had no rights. I assume you are fine with ending slavery and giving women rights. So you obviously don't want it to be what it was intended to be, you just want the exclusive right to determine what should and shouldn't be changed.
Well, the Founders were all about personal liberty and freedom. For obvious reasons, slavery is incompatible with both of those. Choosing to expand who their values apply to is what conservatives do. Liberals have different values entirely. That's the difference.
So you are acknowledging that the founding fathers planned for slavery to be a part of america. That was part of how it was "intended to be"
Had they intended it to be a slave nation, they would have done nothing to limit the influence of slave states. They did, through that compromise, limit the power of slave states. Think of slavers as a big lobby group that gummed things up.
If the government doesn't have the power to set labor laws, employers will abuse their workers. They do now, but no where near the levels they did before the government started regulating. If you want to have a particular medical procedure and your employer decides they don't want you to have it, they could just deny you health coverage. If the government regulates that, or better provides the health insurance themselves, you cannot be denied care. I can keep going, but essentially, any power the government gives up will be taken by someone else. If you actually succeeding in shrinking the government you would just be handing that power to the rich and powerful and would lose any say in the matter.
Unions can work out labor conditions and pay with their employers.
If you are getting a pointless procedure done, your employer would oppose it. If it would improve your health and therefore working efficiency, they would support you getting it.
I am very much surprised you aren't in my camp about this. I support a small federal government and federalism. If California wants to have tons of spending and high taxes, let them. If people in Florida don't want to be taxed and regulated a lot, they shouldn't have to. Why can't state government be more in charge of these things? You are a liberal, which means you should be in favor of offering choices. If the federal government has all this power, unhappy people have no choice but to leave the country. With federalism, if you don't like how California does things, you can move to Florida or wherever better reflects your values.
Do you or do you not have a problem with that and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are you saying that the religion of peace has struck.... again again?
Created: