American Politics the 2016 edition

timothy leary wrote: The war has already begun

Damn hogweed.

Pick any candidate. I picked Hillary but they all qualify. Now turn the sound off on the video. Scary stuff. Here be monsters.

rushfan4 wrote: Windhawk wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Republicans are more fiscally responsible in the sense that they are budgeting the money to spend on things that in theory at least will grow the economy. Yup, in theory. Spending money on the military budget does create jobs and create wealth (at least within that sector). True enough. Lowering taxes on the wealthy does provide them with more money to invest (and create jobs) or spend (and create jobs). Indeed. But they will only invest if they can earn enough money to go with a solid profit, and the days when big investors felt an obligation to invest where they actually live seems to have disappeared. Tax cuts for the rich is what has made China a growing economic superpower of course, as well as quite a few other low wage cost countries worldwide.  Again, this is purely theory as Reagonomics is also known as trickle down economics because only a small amount trickled down.  And when it trickled down, it had a growing tendency to do so in various tax havens and their banking systems, sadly. That is the problem when you are applying theory against reality.  In theory, the wealth should flow down instead of trickle down.  Unfortunately, human nature has a way of putting up a dam against the flow to make it trickle.  It is also a change in mentality I suspect. In older times, especially when the world was a bit smaller than these days, people with wealth were more inclined to invest locally, to reap the benefits and admiration that came to those that was benefactors of their local communities. That one of the benefits they got was that they could act without thinking too much about laws and regulations is, of course, the backside of that particular story. On the flipside, giving money to homeless people and welfare recipients and mental patients gives them money to spend, which in theory creates jobs. Indeed, that is a proven fact. But none of that gets invested. Not directly no, but just about all of the additional funds they have will go towards growing the local economy. And you are stuck with the dilemma of why should those that work hard (or were born into a family that once worked hard) and succeed be punished and forced to support those who are too "lazy" to work hard and are perfectly content to scam the system. That working hard stuff is mainly myth. Are you trying to tell me that a cleaning lady at a hotel or a typical McDonalds employee doesn't work hard? Or the guys that picks up your trash? I'll challenge anyone to try to work in those or other typical low paid  occupations for a few weeks.  I was more trying to play Devil's advocate by quoting this myth which is imbedded in many people's belief system.  But it is the "lazy" people who take advantage of the system and are "career" welfare lifers who cause this disconnect.  I don't know if this is 5% of recipients or 95% of recipients but the fact that they are out there that causes the discontent with the haves.  A cleaning lady or McDonald's worker probably does work hard, but shouldn't they have inspired to be more than that.  Shouldn't they have worked harder in school and had better focus and goals to get themselves into careers where they could actually make more than the minimum wage?  Maybe if they had spent less time partying and more time hitting the books they wouldn't be in the predicament that they are in.   I worked hard in school to get good grades.  I didn't party.  I didn't drink and do drugs.  Those people shunned me in school.  Now that they are reaping what they sowed, why should I have to support them.  Now, sometimes I do think these things, but it isn't my belief system.  I just understand it.  I also fully understand that all people weren't privileged enough to have the upbringing that I had.  And as you said below, I understand that there are those who are less fortunate in terms of levels of intelligence due to nature or bad luck in who their parents were or what society has done to them.  I truly get it...and I am good with the system being there as a safety net to help those people.  I know many people who didn't drink in excess, rarely partied, never did drugs and worked their asses off but still didn't manage to study or work their way to success. For a multiple of different reasons, where lack of intelligence rarely if ever is one of them. There will always be some freeloaders, but not as many as people think. Everyone have heard of them, but naming them has often proven to be a harder challenge. Case in point: The US states that started drug testing the welfare recipients. Less than 2% tested positive for drugs last time I saw statistics (Utah the exception - 2,6%, but still much lower than the nationwide average for drug use of about 8%), a percentage most likely a bit below what one would get if the same applied to, say, members of the US congress. Most people do what they can to be better off, to the best of their ability. The ones who don't is a clear minority, and one might assume that certain mental disorders relating to lack of empathy and sociopathic tendencies will cover the greater majority of those cases, 3-5% of the general population have sociopathic tendencies from what I understand.    Isn't it the church's job to support these unfortunate souls who are down and out? Should welfare to those in need be a matter of chance and luck? Congress gives us a tax incentive to volunteer and donate money to the church and other organization to help these less fortunate individuals. The church does a lot of good indeed, and they do it at a much lower cost than any business you could name when active in those fields, but they can only give as much aid out as they get money in. Which is and will always be a fundamental weakness to the work they do. If I don't choose to do this, then who gives the government the right to force me to do this.  (Playing Devil's Advocate, but I can understand this point of view). The key question is, of course, why should we help those unfortunate. Why spend resources to help the down and out drug addict who slowly destroys his life? Or the transgender kid who was abused, couldn't take the pain any more and escaped from reality by way of alcohol and narcotics.  And just to throw out another saying "give a person a fish they eat for a day, teach them to fish and they eat for a lifetime". But what about those unable to learn to fish?  This is what is the most wrong about our welfare system. A welfare system needs to have several goals in sight. All of them, ultimately, will be oriented towards reducing the cost for society as well as helping those in need. To help people to help themselves indeed, but also to understand that some are easier to enable than others, and some people just can't be helped. Not because of a lack of will actually, in most cases it will be a lack of actual intelligence, too many severe traumatic life experiences or too much physical and/or mental damage. To state an example: Do you expect the woman who was raped 40.000 times to actually be able to live a regular life afterwards?  I can't say that I am a big fan of Bernie promising free college education because again, why should I have to pay to send someone else's kids to school, tossing in a detail here: The free tuition is limited to public schools only. The private schools will still exist, and presumably they will build up a reputation of giving higher class or quality education, and the government will not fund the tuition of those who attend the private options. I would expect that all government direct and indirect funding of those private facilities would stop once the public option becomes free, and the net cost of that transition for the government wouldn't actually be all that great What effect will this have on the educations that Public colleges have to provide.  The wealthy will always be able to send their kids to private colleges and pay the big bucks for the elite educations, but will the less than wealthy still get a quality education at a free university, or are they going to end up with the McDonald's cookie cutter education because they got what they paid for.  My employers paid for my college education so I had that going for me and that opportunity is there or those who are lucky enough to figure it out.  People just need to be smarter about it. If you can't afford to go to a 4-year school and live on campus than where you end up in debt to your eyeballs, than maybe you shouldn't do that.  Maybe you should stay at home and go to a local college and work your way through it.  That is what I did. We have both free and private paid tuition in Norway, and while the private schools may open a few more doors in terms of prestigious job positions, the actual level of education they get is by and large the same in terms of documented quality. Many good teachers have chosen to teach at public universities here for idealistic or ideological reasons. People less concerned about earning as much as they can, and more concerned about teaching and doing public research in their respective fields.    but on the other hand at least it is helping "teach them how to fish" so maybe they will be able to "Eat for a lifetime" and someday help to pay for someone else's kid to go to college. Inserted a few comments as seen for the view of someone living in a social democracy (and politically I'm mainly regarded by others as a person with a centrum/libertarian/right stance, and slightly conservative, at that) In case, it wasn't clear, most of the points in my above post are things that I understand why people feel that way more than that is how I feel.  There are three sides to every story and that applies to American politics as well as anything else. I posted my replies above.  They are somewhat schizophrenic since I agree with one side of the coin but understand the other side of the coin and it is sometimes difficult to differentiate the two side without typing out of both sides of my mouth.

Expanded the conversation a bit. I get the point that you play the devil's advocate a bit here :-)

timothy leary wrote: Clowns to the left of us jokers to the right stuck in the middle again.

so who updates the song to reflect the times when the clowns and jokers are now both on the right...

micky wrote: timothy leary wrote: Clowns to the left of us jokers to the right stuck in the middle again.  so who updates the song to reflect the times when the clowns and jokers are now both on the right...

I meant both parties.


Edited by garfunkel - February 28 2016 at 17:58

Probably so. I just don't like what's going on right now.  

Oh Micky, you've already told me I have to vote!   I will, but I don't know if I'll like doing it. 

I think I have a good enough head on my shoulders to understand why people prefer one set of ideals and it's just OK if I disagree with them.  Sadly I think most folks in this country fight over nonsense and don't want to make a joint effort to fix a problem.  And I do think that that is one thing Repubs have more of a problem with than Dems. Too bad that I'm just a bit more right-leaning, so it's hard for me to vote for a Dem...

I think that made sense. I need to sit down and read a book more often and put down my Ipod. Gosh, I love music!


Edited by garfunkel - February 28 2016 at 19:42

I vote soon in Oklahoma in the Super Tuesday primary. I'm voting for Bernie. I want someone who will put the liberal causes on the table. Forcefully, all the better. When I hear Hillary talk about Bernie being unrealistic, all I can think of is she's another moderate sell-out like Obama and her husband. The strategy they all advocate is to guess what kind or degree of change the Republicans will accept and propose something close to that. She, like others, doesn't understand a bidding war. If you're willing to accept a 50-50 compromise, you don't actually propose that, or you'll end up with 25-75 or worse. I like where Bernie's at, but if that's unrealistic, so what? I say the Dems should start off with 90-10 proposals, and quit allowing the Right to define what is moderate, just as they define what is liberal and what is socialist. Go Bernie! But it'll probably still be Hillary. Rest assured I voted for her twice for Senator when I lived in NY state. I guess I can do that again in the general, but not this Tuesday.


Edited by HackettFan - February 29 2016 at 00:27

garfunkel wrote: Oh Micky, you've already told me I have to vote!   I will, but I don't know if I'll like doing it.  I think I have a good enough head on my shoulders to understand why people prefer one set of ideals and it's just OK if I disagree with them.  Sadly I think most folks in this country fight over nonsense and don't want to make a joint effort to fix a problem.  And I do think that that is one thing Repubs have more of a problem with than Dems. Too bad that I'm just a bit more right-leaning, so it's hard for me to vote for a Dem... I think that made sense. I need to sit down and read a book more often and put down my Ipod. Gosh, I love music!

good man  

do tell...  just what is it that leans you right. You do definitely seem more enlightened than the typical backwoods ignorant racist/bigoted moron that lean right