US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2713

On October 05 2020 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

On October 05 2020 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

On October 05 2020 23:48 Arghmyliver wrote:



You're both right. I too find myself torn between refusing to participate in a broken system that doesn't represent me and trying to change the system from within. There are obvious problems with both strategies. Ostensibly the system is designed to change when necessary and to allow for that change via peaceful implementation of new policy, at the same time, if we claim the system is broken and does not adequately achieve it's purpose of representing the will of the populace, must we not take drastic action to fix it? As per usual, the best solution probably lies somewhere in the middle, but I'll be damned if I have any idea what it is.

On October 05 2020 22:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:



Well, you would be surprised, but I live in a bourgeois democracy that doesn't use my tax money to kill kids in Yemen and where the police doesn't massacre black people.

America has a problem with racism because too many of its people are racist. And a problem with violence because its culture is rooted in violence. It has nothing to do with bourgeois democracy and will not be solved by your leninist bs.

As for my egoism. Here is how I see it. You don't give two shits about the million people who will lose their healthcare if Trump beats Biden, or the women who won't be able to abort safely, because your sublime revolté posing and your ideological purity is more important. Isn't it more fun to be able to tell people how racist or how compromised they are when you just ignore actual people and make grand talk about the Freirian Marxist Leninist Revolution to come?

So, see, who is egoistic here is a matter of perspective. I know you see it differently. You see me as not caring about others and yourself as seeing the world as it really is. That's fine. I don't agree. Since we can both do it, let's just keep the ad hominem on a dull road, shall we? Don't call me selfish, and I will avoid doing so as well.

On October 05 2020 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

On October 05 2020 23:52 Jockmcplop wrote:


Yeah I think i'm of the same opinion. What we have now is unacceptable, and we shouldn't accept it, but I don't know what the alternative is. Gradual change definitely isn't it, it doesn't work.

On October 05 2020 23:53 Neneu wrote:


How did this turn into



This?



EDIT:




One thing is certain and that whichever system a nation have, it should reflect its people and their values. If it doesn't, it is just another tyranny which is only able to sustain itself through suppression of its people.

On October 06 2020 00:13 Danglars wrote:
Let's have a nice, amicable country split where all you would-be revolutionaries can take on your rapid change in political representation and new "system," and you leave middle America and rural America alone. The American system is designed to slow down change in order to preserve liberty and protect the Republic from the whims of a mob. From this thread, it sounds well suited to prevent the "upend the current system" types from achieving their bad ideas too quickly for a democratic backlash.

Biden's got Bernie advisors, so you'll probably be much of the somewhat-sane things you want. The big systemic changes will require constitutional amendment, and that requires ratification of 3/4 of the states. That's an important check on all the things discussed here.

Have your radical de-industrialization to stop climate change, and free health care, and the rates of taxation to do both and fund the welfare state, but do it in your blue states and blue enclaves. Don't foist it on the rest of America that think you're bozo utopians with a penchant for demeaning ideologically different Americans. (With all this talk of revolution, I'm becoming more and more glad that my side has enough guns to make revolution against my "tribe" or interests plenty bloody)

On October 06 2020 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
As a small aside, I do wonder how many folks here would have been monarchists back in the 1700s, assuming they were of a similar social class - say, skilled tradesmen. Whether or not the situation is the same, the arguments in favor of leaving things be sound just about exactly the same as they would have been back then.

On October 05 2020 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:

So long as you don't live in France you have no obligation to their economy in exchange for your citizenship? Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside if you're a US citizen. So my taxes would still go toward such atrocities even if I lived in a country that was a social democracy where the exploitation is mostly outside the nation's boarder and more subtle/indirect than a place like the US.

But I don't want to attempt to maintain an intentionally exploitative system and make it just palatable enough to stave off revolutions in the metropolises. I want a vision of a society that is working to end, not maintain, the exploitative relationship between capital, natural resources and labor for a more holistic vision of the world that understands conscientização as our pursuit, not profit.

If you are a U.S. citizen or a resident alien of the United States and you live abroad, you are taxed on your worldwide income. However, you may qualify to exclude your foreign earnings from income up to an amount that is adjusted annually for inflation ($103,900 for 2018, $105,900 for 2019, and $107,600 for 2020). In addition, you can exclude or deduct certain foreign housing amounts.

On October 06 2020 00:03 Jockmcplop wrote:


What is 'the people and their values' in a polarized political system?

For example, what are the current American values when it comes to abortion?

On October 06 2020 00:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Where does this myth that the left doesn't have guns too? I never understood it. And nice pot calling the kettle black there. You're foisting your ignorance on the rest of the US as well. You do know you're the minority party right?

On October 06 2020 00:19 farvacola wrote:
Noting that you are glad your tribe has guns to kill people who want to make changes you disagree with is about as cowardly and pathetic as it gets, congrats Danglars. Perhaps some Proud Boy masculinity lessons would do you well.

That's how you know Danglars doesn't actually do much with firearms outside of using rights to them as support for internet arguments, there's no texture to his 2nd amendment stance outside the sterile environment of debate.

On October 06 2020 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
As a small aside, I do wonder how many folks here would have been monarchists back in the 1700s, assuming they were of a similar social class - say, skilled tradesmen. Whether or not the situation is the same, the arguments in favor of leaving things be sound just about exactly the same as they would have been back then.

On October 06 2020 00:23 WombaT wrote:

It is worth noting that this particular proposition should work both ways, which you seem rather less aggravated at in your musings on here.

On October 06 2020 00:37 Neneu wrote:
Whatever the compromise is. Just because a nation is strongly polarized does not give the government right to supress its own people. Any government should reflect its own citizens.

On October 06 2020 00:13 Danglars wrote:
Let's have a nice, amicable country split where all you would-be revolutionaries can take on your rapid change in political representation and new "system," and you leave middle America and rural America alone. The American system is designed to slow down change in order to preserve liberty and protect the Republic from the whims of a mob. From this thread, it sounds well suited to prevent the "upend the current system" types from achieving their bad ideas too quickly for a democratic backlash.

Biden's got Bernie advisors, so you'll probably be much of the somewhat-sane things you want. The big systemic changes will require constitutional amendment, and that requires ratification of 3/4 of the states. That's an important check on all the things discussed here.

Have your radical de-industrialization to stop climate change, and free health care, and the rates of taxation to do both and fund the welfare state, but do it in your blue states and blue enclaves. Don't foist it on the rest of America that think you're bozo utopians with a penchant for demeaning ideologically different Americans. (With all this talk of revolution, I'm becoming more and more glad that my side has enough guns to make revolution against my "tribe" or interests plenty bloody)

On October 06 2020 00:49 Arghmyliver wrote:


Imean this is exactly my point. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink. When you have a bunch of actors like Danglars here who believe that being hella ignorant is an "ideological difference" and that science is a matter of opinion. Like, I could honestly care less what your political beliefs are, I defy you to live on a planet inhospitable to life. As long as you offer SOME kind of solution, I'm honestly ok. Even if your solution is dumb as hell, at least you acknowledge the problem and try to fix it. This idea that denying science is a valid political stance is toxic and detrimental.

On October 06 2020 00:42 Mohdoo wrote:


Its not as simple as "They want abortion, those other people don't, so lets agree on half abortion"

The form of compromise being sought by conservatives is to essentially let governors decide. So abortion could be something you go to prison for, or it could be paid for by the government, depending on borders within our country. That isn't a good solution, it's a decision to just ride solo.