1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Q3 2019 Story Competition entries are up folks! Reviewing open for 2 more days! (September 24th)

    Once you have reviewed, you can rank your top three
    Dismiss Notice

U.S. 2020 Elections

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Conquistador, Jan 20, 2019.

  1. Conquistador

    Conquistador Professor

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    425
    Location:
    Your Mother's Basement
    High Score:
    0
    @Rhaegar I

    Chill tf out with all this identity nonsense.

    "The sexist connotations of the phrase" implies that you do not think that he is a sexist, but are choosing to call him out for a slightly offensive phrase.

    Your biggest problem with some people isn't their policies but that fact that they are old, and white, and that they are men (even though I'm pretty sure you are one too!)

    I get it that you are more liberal than most. That's fine. But you have proven yourself to be:
    1. Ageist
    2. Racist
    3. Sexist

    Given your political beliefs, I would have assumed that you opposed those attitude.

    I guess you never know.
     
  2. Agayek

    Agayek Totally Sirius DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,462
    This wasn't aimed at me, but since I'm in many ways part of the group you're taking a passive aggressive swipe at, I figured I'd answer.

    1) Public health insurance funded by a mix of income taxes and social security payments (the retirement pay out aspect of which I'd like to see removed), which would cover routine checks and health emergencies that prevent people from being productive members of the work force. Then give the option for folks to buy private health insurance on top of that to cover whatever else.

    2) Major infrastructure overhauls and repairs funded by a hike in the gas tax, with the goal of fully refurbishing every major piece of infrastructure in the US by 2050

    3) Massive tax breaks and incentives programs to get every major power plant in the US using nuclear power by 2035

    4) Telling the rest of the world to fuck off and stop being the global securitor, then slash the military budget and dump the proceeds in NASA's lap over the following decade with the goal of asteroid mining infrastructure in place by 2050 and extraterrestrial colonies by 2075
     
  3. pbluekan

    pbluekan Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dancing in the Mindfield
    This is always quoted, but has little to no meaning. All of the places it has been done have populations that are less than a third of the US population, and have that same proportion of land area. Norway? Finland? Denmark? These places have full college tuition and healthcare, but have populations smaller than New York City.

    The total cost and the impact of that cost on a per-citizen basis is not proportionate.
     
  4. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    True. But no Russia is knocking, and they don't have anything but either appeasement or begging Big Bro USA, but that doesn't stop people from wanting it like that. It goes against practicality, but doesn't stop leftists from wanting it. So, I put it there.
     
  5. pbluekan

    pbluekan Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,105
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dancing in the Mindfield
    1. Climate change legislation. I like the Green New Deal, but it isn't possible without Nuclear, which most people who support this agenda don't want for various reasons, most of which are unfounded.

    2. Much higher taxes on the rich and super rich, even lower corporate tax rates. Pull the money out at the individual level and draw companies to the US.

    3. Infrastructure renovation on a mass scale. 2050 completion.

    4. Education overhaul. Increased funding and regulation to K-12 with the goal of $100k masters degree teachers salary. Massively increased tax breaks for higher education up to a four year degree or trade and or education stipends for the same. Regulation on public university spending. For fucks sake, can we put less money towards athletics and athletic scholarships. I would much prefer that tuition as a whole is reduced. Regulation on the student loan industry to the tune of low single digit or decimal interest rates with delayed effects for at least eight years.

    5. Government contract system overhaul. Remove the "whatever it costs at the end" tag for most types of development. It has encouraged companies to extend, test, re-test, and re-test their projects just to draw out as much funding as they possibly can.

    6. Healthcare overhaul: Howbout instead of just pouring money onto the system, we actually implement some well thought out regulation to actually deal with the major factors of the costs, which aren't the insurance companies. These factors are our absolutely out of control pharmaceutical industry, the patent system, and the hospitals themselves.
    Can we not get into a slapfight?
     
  6. Rhaegar I

    Rhaegar I Death Eater

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    958
    Location:
    Right behind You...
    I don't think there's anything the least bit wrong with being concerned about people too old for the Presidency. It's an extremely tough job that exhausts even the best of people. Obama was a relatively young man, and we spent 8 years watching his hair grey. What makes you think someone who would celebrate their 80th birthday in the White House do that well with the stress of the job?

    But if you think I'm only opposing the likes of Bloomberg, Biden, and Sanders due to their age and race and gender:

    I oppose Bloomberg because he's too moderate for my taste, has no political experience with anything larger than New York City, hasn't even served as mayor for five years, and there are better use for his billions than run for President (namely that data-centric political organization he's talking about).

    I oppose Biden because he's too moderate for my taste, did some uncomfortable things in the past, and his time to run for President already passed.

    I oppose Sanders because he seems to be better at being decisive at causing a ruckus than actually leading, his 2016 campaign staff has some serious sexual harassment allegations, and his time to run for President already passed.
     
  7. tikkier2000

    tikkier2000 Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    131
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    Unfortunately, it's easy as the opposition to dismiss opponents with experience as opponents that are part of the evil, corrupt establishment when it's a case by case basis.

    a. Sometimes. Most policies are going to have smear campaigns from those that vehemently oppose them---particularly egregious misinformation in some cases, I'll admit---but considering all I see from the people that are for universal healthcare, free college, etc. are comparisons to other countries and no plan to actually implement them in the United States, I'm not inclined to entertain their ideas if they cannot articulate them to me. I believe in negotiation over language, and considering Congress seems to be allergic to exercising their law degrees, no one has even attempted to present evidence that they've thought their policies through beyond conceptualization.

    b. Check the recent pages of this thread (263 onward) for the breakdown on why exactly majority doesn't hold end-all-be-all sway, nor is it necessarily the correct true political North. In short, people can be morons and it's easy to jump on policies that sounds nice to you personally that you are not actually informed of nor understand the workings of.

    c. Great. Links for those, number one. Number two, those countries are not the U.S. Maybe it could work, maybe it couldn't, but the fact of the matter is that nobody has actually presented me with any detail on how it would work here, how it's worked in another country, and what changes would have to be made. At the same time, just because it works in another country doesn't mean we should even try to implement it. The problem is that no actual argumentation has actually occurred, therefore your claims get dismissed out of hand.

    d. Amazing, but my points above still stand. And possible does not mean likely, nor does it mean good, nor does it even mean better. I haven't seen evidence otherwise because a lot of those on the left refuse to provide me with that evidence or point me in its direction when the topic comes up, but by all means, provide links.

    Centrism can ultimately slant two ways:

    1) You appease. This is the wrong way to go about centrism. If all you do is play moderator, it becomes very easy to believe that the midpoint is the right point, which is demonstrably false.

    2) You carefully consider your policy prescriptions and negotiate with your fellow Congressmen to implement them. You may lean one way or another in general, but typically realize that constant polarization is not and will never be helpful except in very specific circumstances. Your approach to lawmaking and/or voting is more specific and detail-oriented, less interested in broad strokes.

    For the U.S., the policies @Rhaegar I listed are pretty damn left. But you alienate a lot of centrists and moderates because you seemingly have no plan or argument beyond: "Morally, this is what you should be doing." And that doesn't fly with me, and it doesn't fly with a lot of people.

    Do I think everyone in Congress has a problem with details and actual lawmaking? Absolutely and very much including centrists. But it sure as hell isn't just a centrist problem. I'd also like to point out that saying "But they don't propose any policies!!!" does not excuse the opposition from not doing so either and backing it with an actual argument.
     
  8. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    That's literally every ageist argument ever against whatever they can't do, so....
     
  9. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    389
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    So basically you want things to keep going to shit...just with your people driving the car off the road.

    Centrism/Moderatism is how we get back to common sense politics and the belief that we are all a team in this crazy world. Otherwise, you might as well have the States break away from the union if the two political parties decided that they are just going to keep fucking each other over with increasing polarization.
     
  10. Conquistador

    Conquistador Professor

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    425
    Location:
    Your Mother's Basement
    High Score:
    0
    "Taxation without representation."

    That was one of the things we fought against in the revolutionary war. If you want to significantly increase the taxes of the people you need their consent - or in this case, the consent of the people they elected to represent them. You can't just have some super socialist person elected and have them decide the policy because that's what you agree with.

    If a majority vote can't be found, (a large majority preferably) this increase in taxation is simply robbery and goes against the principals this nation was founded upon. You want something to change, go out and vote. Until then, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of Americans do not consider a higher tax something to go out and vote for.

    People don't want it. You know how I know that? Because I know that right it won't pass. We elect representatives to speak for us and right now, the people speaking for the people don't want it. Effectively, that means the people don't want it.

    Stop advocating for robbery.
     
  11. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    389
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    Not that I don't agree...but the Taxation without representation as a rallying cry essentially died with JFK's New Deal.
     
  12. Lindsey

    Lindsey Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,110
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    We're far past this. Until Republicans are willing to be moderate and come to the table, there is no point for Democrats to do so. All they would be doing is encouraging Republicans to keep going right and having the Democrats follow. While most of the first world has become more liberal between the 1970s to early 2000s, Americans went to the right. Our liberal policies are considered moderate in almost every first world nation.

    Moderation is only going to happen when one of the parties collapses, and whatever rises from the ashes is forced to be more moderate. In my eyes, it's going to be the Republicans crumbling first mostly because of the continuing transition from rural to urban, less white voters and the decline of religion. I can't see the Republicans coming to the table in any other way than a complete breakdown as a party.

    They wouldn't even work with the Democrats to reopen the government that, they themselves, voted for previously.
     
  13. awinarock

    awinarock Fourth Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,195
    Location:
    Texas
    Before we can definitively day whether or not Americans would be for or against a tax increase (ideally a progressive one that fairly distributes the tax burden), we need politicians that actually communicate that tax increase honestly without over promising on what it can deliver or equating it to raping dead babies.

    Even in the current political climate, most Americans favor an increase taxation on the ultra wealthy and while we do in fact elect representatives to speak for us, the reality is that they often don't. Most Americans favor legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing hard drugs yet so many of our representatives refuse to do so. A large chunk of the country want all student debt to forgiven, but it won't happen. Most Americans are also in favor of regulating drug prices but that won't happen anytime soon either (at least not with Trump and a GOP majority in the senate).

    Ideally, the representatives will sometimes go against the public's desires for the sake of maintaining a stable republic but in reality, they vote against the publication desires and reasons for electing in the first place to satisfy lobbyists and special interest groups.

    So no, you don't "know that", you think you do.

    The article doesn't call it an outright failure. It only says that the preliminary data points to lack luster results in their attempts at increasing employment prospects.

    Other countries are still going through their trials with different goals like pulling people out of poverty or increasing standard of living. The data for those trials are still being collected and/or processed so we still don't have hard data for UBI's effectiveness in the modern era.
     
  14. Agayek

    Agayek Totally Sirius DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,462
    I feel the need to point out that "moderate" does not necessarily mean "the middle ground". You can be a moderate without actually meeting the Republicans halfway.

    A lot of being moderate just means listening, acknowledging when the opposition has a good idea and incorporating meaningful critique, regardless of source, into a given policy. Or, in other words, being a successful lawmaker.

    There's an argument to be had over whether or not you want politicians to be successful lawmakers, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  15. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    389
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    See Agayek's post. Just because the Republican's have gone off the deep end to the right doesn't mean the Democrats have to do the same thing in the other direction

    And since when is "everyone else is doing it" a good indicator of proper lawmaking/leadership?
     
  16. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    An experiment whose main objective was to see if UBI affected employement and income levels positively ended without any signs fo doing the former, and with, so far, not many signs for the latter, isn't a failure. Its what then? Lateral success? 'The article didn't say it'. Literally google anything about it and almost all results will say it ended in failure, that this particular didn't chew it is no excuse to just not thinking the logical implications.
     
  17. awinarock

    awinarock Fourth Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,195
    Location:
    Texas
    The article you posted states that the data is preliminary and that the results for the second year of the experiment won't be posted until 2020 so no, we do y know yet that it's actually a failure. All we know is that the results of the first year are lackluster.
     
  18. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    I see. Then when the second year comes and its similar, its obvious they just didn't test long enough. You just need 5 years, and then more. Literally only one of these wide scale experiments has ended, and the data we have now, for a full half of the experiment. That is not a failure. Just a lateral success.
     
  19. awinarock

    awinarock Fourth Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,195
    Location:
    Texas
    If the results are similar for the second year, I will be more than happy to admit that it was a failure but right now, any conclusion, like the data, is preliminary.

    If the goal is to see if UBI can help job prospects, one year obviously isn't enough due to external factors like the state overall job markets, the health of the industries the UBI recipients are applying to, etc. So yeah, giving the experiment one more year before making a hard conclusion that it was a failure isn't unreasonable.
     
  20. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    All of those factors you quoted can actually swing in a worst or better way in an extra year as much as in the first year, but let us wait and see then. As of now, no evidence supports it, and the evidence we get, so far, says it doesn't work as intended besides as a hand out to make the masses happy. So let us wait and see.
     
Loading...