|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 03 2018 01:07 Ayaz2810 wrote:This is kind of just an addendum to my previous post. The bias and falsehoods are real. Remember the last midterms in 2014? I'm sure you do, that was the year Republicans won the senate and won MORE house seats (adding to their majority). They ran on Obama's "lagging" economy, the "terrible recovery", horrible growth, and so on. Right? Sound familiar? Well if you believed that, then you must believe things are even worse under Trump, or you can just keep lying to yourself. See, here's the hard, cold REALITY..... In 2014, GDP growth was a whopping 5.1 and 4.9% in the 2nd and 3rd quarters leading up to the midterm election - Trump hasn't come CLOSE to that kind of growth. As for job numbers, in 2014 job creation in the months leading up to November were 261, 311, 252, 306, 196, 226, 284, 255 and 307. Again, Trump has NEVER had a run like that. So the FACT is the economy was better under Obama on 2014 that it is today under Trump. There's a reason Trump supporters are considered cult members. https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2018/11/02/the-economy-created-250000-jobs-in-october/
I'm no economist, but those two quarters you mentioned are framed by -1% and 1.9%. And then that section of 2015 is like dead on arrival. What benefit did those high numbers 5.1 and 4.9 really mean?
|
State and local governments aren't particularly interested in protecting your freedoms either, and are just as prone to legislating based solely on their ideological agenda. Why are state governments dominated by minority parties representing rural areas because of gerrymandering so interested in overturning local ordinances that they disagree with? It's the state governments more often than not shutting things down and banning things regarding individual liberties.
|
On November 03 2018 01:39 Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less. The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong. Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr, ""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms."" Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant.
I'll be the first to agree that the goverment gets things wrong. But my question is, why does that matter? Anything that is wrong with a law or regulation is within our power to correct. That is why regulations are not handled by the legislature, but by groups like the EPA. Because good regulations need to be refined, not not mandated.
I also don't think the goverment needs to be involved with what I specifically eat or drink. But I would like them involved with the production of food. Right now our food is filled with sugar due because everyone is obsessed with low fat foods. But sugar makes you fat. You may not have been here, but there an amazing discussion about how US bread is messed up and has several tea spoons of sugar every two slices and salsa had sugar in it(there is no reason for sugar in salsa). This wouldn't be much of a problem, but sugar also has addictive qualities that make it hard to strip out of our diet. I don't think the goverment needs to mandate anything, but I would like them to reconsider how foods are labeled.
There is also the issue that the arguments for a smaller goverment directly benefits the wealthy and corporations, often at teh determent of middle class citizens. You see this in the current conservative movement and media, where they push and championed a tax cut that mostly was just wind fall for stock holders(Interestingly, 80% of all stocks are owned by the 10% wealthiest Americans.) and a massive hit to the US debt. This is while spending massive amounts on the military(but not the VA) and not even attempting to curb spending because that would involve entitlements.
I am not saying that you should ditch your values, but maybe its time to vote for the Democrats an election or two just to keep the Republicans honest. Because right now, if we are unwilling to switch parties the worst actors of each are going to continue that behavior. And unlucky for you is that your party has been winning out for most of the last two decades, so they are at peek bad acting.
On November 03 2018 02:04 chocorush wrote:
State and local governments aren't particularly interested in protecting your freedoms either, and are just as prone to legislating based solely on their ideological agenda. Why are state governments dominated by minority parties representing rural areas because of gerrymandering so interested in overturning local ordinances that they disagree with? It's the state governments more often than not shutting things down and banning things regarding individual liberties.
This is also a good point. Due to the weaken federal goverment, the state government's worst actors are pushing the limits of what they can get away with. We don't experience this in MA, because our state goverment has always been very assertive, but other states mandating that cities can't set a minimum wage or have women's health clinics. State's rights just means that the state can be the one that abuses you.
|
On November 03 2018 01:39 Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less. The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong. Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr, ""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms."" Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant.
The problem I have with this perspective is that the federal government is the only thing standing between people who do not have time and energy to make informed decisions about every subject and corporations which have spent decades and a lot of money researching and implementing the most effective ways to get people to make bad decisions because people making bad decisions is good for their bottom line.
One of the key freedoms we lack in this country is the freedom to not be manipulated by organizations employing teams of people devoted to the study of how to make individuals want a cookie or choose to purchase a soft drink when absent their manipulations no cookie or soft drink would have been purchased.
Given free reign, it only takes a few generations for a corporation to ingrain something into American culture to the point where people no longer question it. See also, diamond wedding rings. Taken as a whole, the US citizenry has been empirically shown to be incapable of seeing and resisting these manipulations. Real freedom isn't keeping the government from telling people in detail that cookies and cake are bad for them or trying to disincentivize consumption. Real freedom is not being subjected to advertisements where everything from the background colors to the music has been carefully calibrated to make you want to eat a cookie.
|
Also, the EPA and other government agencies offer ample opportunity for regular people to give feedback during the rulemaking process via the comment periods.
|
On November 03 2018 02:15 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 01:39 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less. The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong. Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr, ""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms."" Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant. The problem I have with this perspective is that the federal government is the only thing standing between people who do not have time and energy to make informed decisions about every subject and corporations which have spent decades and a lot of money researching and implementing the most effective ways to get people to make bad decisions because people making bad decisions is good for their bottom line. One of the key freedoms we lack in this country is the freedom to not be manipulated by organizations employing teams of people devoted to the study of how to make individuals want a cookie or choose to purchase a soft drink when absent their manipulations no cookie or soft drink would have been purchased. Given free reign, it only takes a few generations for a corporation to ingrain something into American culture to the point where people no longer question it. See also, diamond wedding rings. Taken as a whole, the US citizenry has been empirically shown to be incapable of seeing and resisting these manipulations. Real freedom isn't keeping the government from telling people in detail that cookies and cake are bad for them or trying to disincentivize consumption. Real freedom is not being subjected to advertisements where everything from the background colors to the music has been carefully calibrated to make you want to eat a cookie.
This is gonna sound like im putting words in your mouth. If I am, correct me, but its how its coming across to me.
It sounds like the viewpoint you have is its better to sacrifice the freedom to choose as long as there is some buffer to protect us and make the correct choice FOR us. I wholeheartedly refute the idea that we as human beings are incapable of making a correct, informed decision for ourselves. Your diamond wedding ring example is an excellent, excellent point that a DeBeers marketing campaign was able to sway public opinion and as a result it is now more than semi-expected by society for an individual to shell out 3 months worth of salary for a rock that "Symbolizes da love and affections." It sucks, but the point is individuals STILL HAVE THE ABILITY to say no.
The federal government isn't the only option to protect us from strong, manipulative targeted marketing. Our own smart decision making would do the same thing. Except if we sacrifice that power to make decisions, now the government can abuse that power, and they do. Giving them that power if they don't abuse it IS a solution, but its not the best solution in my opinion.
|
The most recent NPR politics podcast has a really good discussion about the midterms, people fearing a breakdown in civility will lead to violence and demographic change. They have a good spread of reporters with different ages talking about reporting or living through the civil rights era.
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510310/npr-politics-podcast
The key take away for me is that there is simmering undercurrent of fear of unstoppable demographic change. The future of America is that whites will no longer be the majority in the 2045. Full stop. The non-white American citizens that will make up that majority already exist. And unlike the 1960s, where whites were granting civil liberties to a minority group, this is a minority groups becoming the majority. A majority that will never be a monolithic as whites, but still a majority. And this contributes to modern political discourse and tribalism, which reflects the conflicts in our country.
85% of Republicans congress members are white men. 40% of Democratic congress members are white men. We can claim that Trump or Obama are driving the racial divisions in this country, it simply isn't true. We are driving it and politicians are doing exact what we vote them in to do. And so long as the base of each political party controls the primaries due to disinterest from more moderate members, it will stay that way.
@Tempest, Kyadytim is saying that we can make informed decisions for ourselves. But also accepting the fact that humans can be manipulated and there is a ton of research into how to do it. And frankly, I would prefer to have to put in less effort buy food or other daily products that are covered in advertising and often misleading packaging. Or for buying a car to be less of a god damn consumer nightmare were I cannot tell if I am being ripped off or lied to. And I work in law, I'm more than capable of finding out if I'm being ripped off. I just don't want to have to do it to get a cell phone line.
|
On November 03 2018 02:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 01:39 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less. The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong. Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr, ""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms."" Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant. I'll be the first to agree that the goverment gets things wrong. But my question is, why does that matter? Anything that is wrong with a law or regulation is within our power to correct. That is why regulations are not handled by the legislature, but by groups like the EPA. Because good regulations need to be refined, not not mandated. I also don't think the goverment needs to be involved with what I specifically eat or drink. But I would like them involved with the production of food. Right now our food is filled with sugar due because everyone is obsessed with low fat foods. But sugar makes you fat. You may not have been here, but there an amazing discussion about how US bread is messed up and has several tea spoons of sugar every two slices and salsa had sugar in it(there is no reason for sugar in salsa). This wouldn't be much of a problem, but sugar also has addictive qualities that make it hard to strip out of our diet. I don't think the goverment needs to mandate anything, but I would like them to reconsider how foods are labeled. There is also the issue that the arguments for a smaller goverment directly benefits the wealthy and corporations, often at teh determent of middle class citizens. You see this in the current conservative movement and media, where they push and championed a tax cut that mostly was just wind fall for stock holders( Interestingly, 80% of all stocks are owned by the 10% wealthiest Americans.) and a massive hit to the US debt. This is while spending massive amounts on the military(but not the VA) and not even attempting to curb spending because that would involve entitlements. I am not saying that you should ditch your values, but maybe its time to vote for the Democrats an election or two just to keep the Republicans honest. Because right now, if we are unwilling to switch parties the worst actors of each are going to continue that behavior. And unlucky for you is that your party has been winning out for most of the last two decades, so they are at peek bad acting. Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 02:04 chocorush wrote:
State and local governments aren't particularly interested in protecting your freedoms either, and are just as prone to legislating based solely on their ideological agenda. Why are state governments dominated by minority parties representing rural areas because of gerrymandering so interested in overturning local ordinances that they disagree with? It's the state governments more often than not shutting things down and banning things regarding individual liberties. This is also a good point. Due to the weaken federal goverment, the state government's worst actors are pushing the limits of what they can get away with. We don't experience this in MA, because our state goverment has always been very assertive, but other states mandating that cities can't set a minimum wage or have women's health clinics. State's rights just means that the state can be the one that abuses you.
Sadly, my party rarely wins anything :D Im libertarian, and yes I would say I lean slightly more conservative, but DEFINITELY not republican.
You guys are all making great points, and I don't have answers to all of them. In response to you guys saying that "State and local governments aren't particularly interested in protecting your freedoms either, and are just as prone to legislating based solely on their ideological agenda," I say spot on, therefore we shouldn't give them the power to take away those freedoms and focus on their own agendas! To which you say "They need some of that power or they wont be effective enough to care for the ones who cant care for themselves," and I answer "Shit that's a good point, wheres the happy middle ground?"
Like I said, I don't think any of you are necessarily wrong or that im necessarily right in all this stuff. Im great at pointing out problems, not quite as great at providing specific solutions beyong suggesting a Broad ideology that I think would solve MOST but not all problems.
|
On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I.
that says more about your personal psychology than about any greater truth concerning yours or anyone else’s underlying finances
|
I have a buddy who used to be full bore libertarian, but sort of dropped off. One of the main reasons was a bunch of discussions we had were I and others pointed out that his political ideology offered no solutions to anyone’s problems. Which is the role of government, to fix problems that cannot be fixed by markets or individuals alone. We can’t fight fires or crime on our own. And no one would ever vote for someone who political theory was that they were not sure a voter’s specific problem with the responsibility of the government.
Also, the concept of smaller government has been pushed by companies and people who are so rich and powerful that only the government could limit them. There is no free market that controls Amazon or Google now. And there is no stage government that can really punish them. It is federal goverment or nothing. And I don't think anyone wants to live in the 1984 nightmare that China as become on the back of our tech industry.
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662696776/what-its-like-to-be-on-the-blacklist-in-chinas-new-social-credit-system
Seriously, 1984 is real and its in China. It is terrifying.
|
On November 03 2018 02:39 Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 02:15 Kyadytim wrote:On November 03 2018 01:39 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less. The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong. Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr, ""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms."" Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant. The problem I have with this perspective is that the federal government is the only thing standing between people who do not have time and energy to make informed decisions about every subject and corporations which have spent decades and a lot of money researching and implementing the most effective ways to get people to make bad decisions because people making bad decisions is good for their bottom line. One of the key freedoms we lack in this country is the freedom to not be manipulated by organizations employing teams of people devoted to the study of how to make individuals want a cookie or choose to purchase a soft drink when absent their manipulations no cookie or soft drink would have been purchased. Given free reign, it only takes a few generations for a corporation to ingrain something into American culture to the point where people no longer question it. See also, diamond wedding rings. Taken as a whole, the US citizenry has been empirically shown to be incapable of seeing and resisting these manipulations. Real freedom isn't keeping the government from telling people in detail that cookies and cake are bad for them or trying to disincentivize consumption. Real freedom is not being subjected to advertisements where everything from the background colors to the music has been carefully calibrated to make you want to eat a cookie. This is gonna sound like im putting words in your mouth. If I am, correct me, but its how its coming across to me. It sounds like the viewpoint you have is its better to sacrifice the freedom to choose as long as there is some buffer to protect us and make the correct choice FOR us. I wholeheartedly refute the idea that we as human beings are incapable of making a correct, informed decision for ourselves. Your diamond wedding ring example is an excellent, excellent point that a DeBeers marketing campaign was able to sway public opinion and as a result it is now more than semi-expected by society for an individual to shell out 3 months worth of salary for a rock that "Symbolizes da love and affections." It sucks, but the point is individuals STILL HAVE THE ABILITY to say no. The federal government isn't the only option to protect us from strong, manipulative targeted marketing. Our own smart decision making would do the same thing. Except if we sacrifice that power to make decisions, now the government can abuse that power, and they do. Giving them that power if they don't abuse it IS a solution, but its not the best solution in my opinion. The entire field of psychology disagrees with you about human decision making. It's a terrible process and easy to manipulate. Send us both back in time 20 years, and we're having the same debate about cigarette advertising. History has born out over and over that we as humans fail to choose the options that are better for us in the face of carefully crafted marketing campaigns.
You're also making what I'd call a libertarian argument that because you as an individual don't have a problem, it's not a problem society as a whole needs to address.
But anyway, I'm not in favor of sacrificing freedom to choose. I'm in favor of the government acting against corporate marketing rather than telling people they can't buy soda. It would take a generation or two, like with tobacco companies, but soft drink companies would wither and soft drink consumption would be less of a public health issue.
|
On November 03 2018 02:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. that says more about your personal psychology than about any greater truth concerning yours or anyone else’s underlying finances
Please expand on this, possibly with capitalization.
|
On November 03 2018 02:15 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 01:39 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less. The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong. Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr, ""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms."" Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant. The problem I have with this perspective is that the federal government is the only thing standing between people who do not have time and energy to make informed decisions about every subject and corporations which have spent decades and a lot of money researching and implementing the most effective ways to get people to make bad decisions because people making bad decisions is good for their bottom line. One of the key freedoms we lack in this country is the freedom to not be manipulated by organizations employing teams of people devoted to the study of how to make individuals want a cookie or choose to purchase a soft drink when absent their manipulations no cookie or soft drink would have been purchased. Given free reign, it only takes a few generations for a corporation to ingrain something into American culture to the point where people no longer question it. See also, diamond wedding rings. Taken as a whole, the US citizenry has been empirically shown to be incapable of seeing and resisting these manipulations. Real freedom isn't keeping the government from telling people in detail that cookies and cake are bad for them or trying to disincentivize consumption. Real freedom is not being subjected to advertisements where everything from the background colors to the music has been carefully calibrated to make you want to eat a cookie.
this paper examines four different theories of how policy decisions are influenced by democratic institutions. take a look at the abstract and table 4, for their main conclusions.
www.cambridge.org
poor zlefin is no longer with us to comment. but if he were here he might be tentatively interested in the outcome while putting oressure on the soundness of their methods. they perform an interesting analysis even if they come to somewhat obvious conclusions
|
On November 03 2018 03:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 02:55 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. that says more about your personal psychology than about any greater truth concerning yours or anyone else’s underlying finances Please expand on this, possibly with capitalization.
ill do a detailed analysis if you provide your tax returns and credit card expenses for the period in question
|
On November 03 2018 03:03 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 02:39 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 02:15 Kyadytim wrote:On November 03 2018 01:39 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:
[quote]
I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world.
Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting.
Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:
[quote]
I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world.
Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting.
Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less. The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong. Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr, ""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms."" Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant. The problem I have with this perspective is that the federal government is the only thing standing between people who do not have time and energy to make informed decisions about every subject and corporations which have spent decades and a lot of money researching and implementing the most effective ways to get people to make bad decisions because people making bad decisions is good for their bottom line. One of the key freedoms we lack in this country is the freedom to not be manipulated by organizations employing teams of people devoted to the study of how to make individuals want a cookie or choose to purchase a soft drink when absent their manipulations no cookie or soft drink would have been purchased. Given free reign, it only takes a few generations for a corporation to ingrain something into American culture to the point where people no longer question it. See also, diamond wedding rings. Taken as a whole, the US citizenry has been empirically shown to be incapable of seeing and resisting these manipulations. Real freedom isn't keeping the government from telling people in detail that cookies and cake are bad for them or trying to disincentivize consumption. Real freedom is not being subjected to advertisements where everything from the background colors to the music has been carefully calibrated to make you want to eat a cookie. This is gonna sound like im putting words in your mouth. If I am, correct me, but its how its coming across to me. It sounds like the viewpoint you have is its better to sacrifice the freedom to choose as long as there is some buffer to protect us and make the correct choice FOR us. I wholeheartedly refute the idea that we as human beings are incapable of making a correct, informed decision for ourselves. Your diamond wedding ring example is an excellent, excellent point that a DeBeers marketing campaign was able to sway public opinion and as a result it is now more than semi-expected by society for an individual to shell out 3 months worth of salary for a rock that "Symbolizes da love and affections." It sucks, but the point is individuals STILL HAVE THE ABILITY to say no. The federal government isn't the only option to protect us from strong, manipulative targeted marketing. Our own smart decision making would do the same thing. Except if we sacrifice that power to make decisions, now the government can abuse that power, and they do. Giving them that power if they don't abuse it IS a solution, but its not the best solution in my opinion. The entire field of psychology disagrees with you about human decision making. It's a terrible process and easy to manipulate. Send us both back in time 20 years, and we're having the same debate about cigarette advertising. History has born out over and over that we as humans fail to choose the options that are better for us in the face of carefully crafted marketing campaigns. You're also making what I'd call a libertarian argument that because you as an individual don't have a problem, it's not a problem society as a whole needs to address. But anyway, I'm not in favor of sacrificing freedom to choose. I'm in favor of the government acting against corporate marketing rather than telling people they can't buy soda. It would take a generation or two, like with tobacco companies, but soft drink companies would wither and soft drink consumption would be less of a public health issue.
Youre not wrong that humans make bad decisions, for sure. Im arguing that the greater evil is the Government making the decision for us, even if it protects us from our own bad decisions. Maybe im wrong though, and im not saying that in a sarcastic or pithy way.
It can be a problem society as a whole needs to address, im debating the method in which it gets addressed :D
|
Anyways gents, im off of work now, headed home to catch the finals. Ive enjoyed the discussions, ill probably stay awhile, thanks for being intelligent and willing to converse civilly!
|
On November 03 2018 03:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 03:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 02:55 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz. If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 22:12 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 19:57 Excludos wrote:
And I am really struggling to understand anyone willing to seek these unbiased outlets and reading through their articles can somehow come to the conclusion that Trump/Republicans are doing a good job. When every outlet (unbiased or otherwise) paints you in a bad picture except for your own propaganda machines, it's time to look closer at the picture. I think a lot of that comes back to people having their own "ranking" of what is important to them, a ranking that differs from someone elses. For example, if someone holds economic stability and growth high on their list of values, and social progress a bit lower on their hierarchy of important factors, its easier to understand why in their opinion the leadership the US currently has isn't the most horrible thing in the world. Another example; I'm a libertarian white male who lives in Texas, my wife is Mexican and leans liberal on most things. Currently running for senate we have republican Ted Cruz vs Democrat Beto O'Rourke. For all Ted Cruz's flaws, if I had to choose one of those individuals to support, it would probably be Cruz. I agree with O'Rourke on MORE things than I agree with Cruz on, mostly social progress type of stuff, but I'm a huge fan of limited government and second amendment (gun rights), these two things rank in the top 3 of things that are important to me in my "Heirarchy of important issues". My wife was in disbelief that I would support Ted Cruz despite a lot of "backward" social thinking that he and other Republicans espouse, and my answer is while Beto has a LOT of good ideas, individual liberty is by far the most important thing to me, and that's an interest I don't think Beto would do a great job of protecting. Therefore, while ol Trumpypoo has done an exceptionally bad job at a lot of things, in someone else's viewpoint (no matter how much I may disagree with them, I don't get to tell someone what is important to them) he may be doing overall good. I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases. Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife. Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. that says more about your personal psychology than about any greater truth concerning yours or anyone else’s underlying finances Please expand on this, possibly with capitalization. ill do a detailed analysis if you provide your tax returns and credit card expenses for the period in question
I have an accountant, but thanks. The tax increases and cuts never impacted my income in any way that would impact my overall buying power, even over a 10 year period. I don't exist in the tax brackets that were impacted.
|
On November 03 2018 03:13 Tempest wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 03:03 Kyadytim wrote:On November 03 2018 02:39 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 02:15 Kyadytim wrote:On November 03 2018 01:39 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2018 00:47 Tempest wrote:On November 03 2018 00:07 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2018 23:49 Tempest wrote:On November 02 2018 23:03 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I think this is a great point, and very common in politics. Voting for someone doesn't mean you support everything they support. In fact few people probably get that luxury, it is a matter trying to pick the best that represents your top interests. I can't fathom why someone would have gun freedom at the top of their list, it honestly just doesn't compute. But I can understand why someone who does would vote Cruz.
If you wouldn't mind I have wondered for some time. If personal liberties and freedoms are at the top of your list, are you pro choice? If not how do you reconcile the two? Yeah, that's a sticky one. Short answer: While I personally lean Pro-Life, I do not believe it is My OR the Governments job to dictate that another person must live by said Pro-Life mentality. A similar subject- I personally am pro vaccinations, im behind it 100%, I think everybody (barring religious beliefs or individuals who have a health condition that doesn't allow them to be vaccinated, etc.) SHOULD be vaccinated, but again it is not my place to FORCE an individual to receive vaccinations. Longer answer: To start with, I have not completely educated myself on all the intricate details involved with this discussion and the merits of both sides viewpoints, so any input I attempt to add to it isn't of the highest caliber and should probably be taken with several grains of delicious sodium. The thing with the whole idea of "Personal freedoms" is that someone should be able to live their life however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on ANOTHER persons personal freedoms. In this case, the unborn child would be the one whos personal freedoms might be infringed upon. However, so much of that is up to interpretation and viewpoint of "When does the baby BECOME a human, or when does it have life." some people believe its the moment of conception, some people believe its not until waaaaay later on, and it seems like that question might not be put to rest any time soon. I personally don't know, so I usually don't try to sway someone else's views on the subject. Its something I still struggle with to be honest, and I don't have a concrete answer of where I stand on the issue. On November 02 2018 23:26 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I doubt voting Beto O'Rourke would impact your gun rights, tbh. The push form of updated guns laws has moved mostly to the state level and focused on tightening up background checks, providing a clear path for police and families taking fire arms temporally. At the federal level most pushes for new guns laws and bans are dead. The best that could happen there is funding for background check data bases.
Also, I think you are underestimating your power as a Republican voting for a Texas Democrat. If Beto was elected, his office would pay attention to any letter you sent on any specific issue. Plus, don’t under estimate how much rope that would get you with your wife.
Too late, already voted for Neal Dikeman :D I understand where youre coming from though. I personally believe Beto cares more than Ted. Probably a lot more lol. But Gun Rights is only part of it, I just used that as an easy example of something Beto is outspoken about. I also care a lot about Minimal Taxation and Limited Government, both things that Beto and I see very differently. The limited taxation issue seems is one I always have a problem with, because it would be challenging for the average American citizen to pay less taxes than we do now. We have really cored out the tax base and stripped the IRS of its ability to collect taxes. And given the state of our infrastructure across the nation, I don’t know if that a responsible way to govern. This country had a much healthier economy when the tax rate was far higher than it is today. And to be frank, further cuts to entitlements will cause to much damage. Our already strained hospital system will implode in rural areas if Medicare and is cut. Also, you are likely firmly middle class. There is almost no way you would feel any tax increase that took place in the US anyways. The government won’t become any larger for you specifically. You are correct, im firmly middle class. Not sure why that makes me immune to shifts in policy regarding taxation and how much power the central government has though :D The taxation issue: Im not against taxation. While most libertarians throw out "Taxation is Theft" its a pretty poor blanket statement that most of them realize is not completely accurate. Im against EXCESSIVE taxation (which arguably is completely subjective anyways) and irresponsible government spending. It would take way too long to dive into every little thing that I think the government messes up in regards to spending, but I think the Gov. priorities on spending are incorrect. I firmly believe education and infrastructure spending should be expanded, while defense and immigration spending should be cut, among other things. I was in the Navy for 6 years and I saw ridiculous amounts of money go to waste due to oversight and irresponsible decisions for example. Theres a funny article that if you wanted to google, it basically points out that the Air Force allowed themselves to be contractually obligated to buy coffee cups at 1200 dollars a pop, just for one silly but 100% true instance. In general, I think the government should tax less and spend less, and be far more efficient than it currently is in its spending. I think we have pretty different philosophies on the role of government and taxation lol :D which is 100% fine, at no point am I ever going to claim your views are wrong just for being different from mine, but I think youll find me similar to Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec in that I do not think it is even POSSIBLE for a large body of government to be responsible, let alone effective enough to justify giving it the amount of power and responsibility over our lives that it currently has. Ron Swanson doesn’t like the government, but also always concedes when it is shown that the government is the only thing thing that can do the job. If the choice is government funded maternity wards or no maternity wards, the show makes it clear he picks people having safe child birth. Not to say anything about you specific, but I think the idea of limited government needs to move beyond things like healthcare and other services that do not function on a free market. Job training is another one. This country was at its best when we had cheap skill training. In regards to taxation and power shifts, let me put it this way. I was a professional during the Bush administration, Obama and Trump. There has been a huge tax cut, raising of taxes and huge tax cut in those times. I never noticed any of them at all. The only expansion of government power I have felt is the protection of pre-existing conditions for my wife and having to show my ID when I pick up a prescription. That is it. The arguments for smaller or larger government rarely impact the everyday American. It is argued as a proxy for far wealthier people than you or I. Agree with the point that if the government is the only available way to achieve something, im 100% behind it. Im not AnCap, just in favor of less government involvement. Much less. The government DOES affect our daily lives good sir. Sometimes (more than half the time, to be fair) the Government does get it right, and a lot of regulations have come about and enacted change for the better. Excellent. But many times the Federal Government does stuff that should be left up to the states, or (federal OR state government) just flat out gets it wrong. Per some random dude on some random internet essay site named Jimmy Orr, ""The power of our great nation lies in several words, one of the most important being freedom. We hear it quite often: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. We have a fantastic opportunity in the United States to make choices for ourselves freely and openly. If one chooses to purchase a soft drink, that is his or her own choice. If one chooses to have a cookie, for all I care, let him have it. It is not my place, nor the place of our federal government to slap someone’s hand and say, “No, Billy, that cake will go right to your belly. You don’t want that.” The whole idea of banning foods, drinks and other perfectly legal consumables from places such as schools, groceries, dining facilities and convenience stores is, first and foremost, an attempt by our federal and state governments to limit our rights and liberties as American citizens. The issue comes down to our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the federal government could inform individuals, conduct health studies, and promote healthier living, and I have no problem with that. All that does is give people the tools to make informed choices. But to take away my freedom to choose what I want to eat or drink? I won’t have it — and we shouldn’t allow it to happen to our children either. When the government begins taking away our choices, it begins taking away our freedoms."" Small, mildly silly example, but its relevant. The problem I have with this perspective is that the federal government is the only thing standing between people who do not have time and energy to make informed decisions about every subject and corporations which have spent decades and a lot of money researching and implementing the most effective ways to get people to make bad decisions because people making bad decisions is good for their bottom line. One of the key freedoms we lack in this country is the freedom to not be manipulated by organizations employing teams of people devoted to the study of how to make individuals want a cookie or choose to purchase a soft drink when absent their manipulations no cookie or soft drink would have been purchased. Given free reign, it only takes a few generations for a corporation to ingrain something into American culture to the point where people no longer question it. See also, diamond wedding rings. Taken as a whole, the US citizenry has been empirically shown to be incapable of seeing and resisting these manipulations. Real freedom isn't keeping the government from telling people in detail that cookies and cake are bad for them or trying to disincentivize consumption. Real freedom is not being subjected to advertisements where everything from the background colors to the music has been carefully calibrated to make you want to eat a cookie. This is gonna sound like im putting words in your mouth. If I am, correct me, but its how its coming across to me. It sounds like the viewpoint you have is its better to sacrifice the freedom to choose as long as there is some buffer to protect us and make the correct choice FOR us. I wholeheartedly refute the idea that we as human beings are incapable of making a correct, informed decision for ourselves. Your diamond wedding ring example is an excellent, excellent point that a DeBeers marketing campaign was able to sway public opinion and as a result it is now more than semi-expected by society for an individual to shell out 3 months worth of salary for a rock that "Symbolizes da love and affections." It sucks, but the point is individuals STILL HAVE THE ABILITY to say no. The federal government isn't the only option to protect us from strong, manipulative targeted marketing. Our own smart decision making would do the same thing. Except if we sacrifice that power to make decisions, now the government can abuse that power, and they do. Giving them that power if they don't abuse it IS a solution, but its not the best solution in my opinion. The entire field of psychology disagrees with you about human decision making. It's a terrible process and easy to manipulate. Send us both back in time 20 years, and we're having the same debate about cigarette advertising. History has born out over and over that we as humans fail to choose the options that are better for us in the face of carefully crafted marketing campaigns. You're also making what I'd call a libertarian argument that because you as an individual don't have a problem, it's not a problem society as a whole needs to address. But anyway, I'm not in favor of sacrificing freedom to choose. I'm in favor of the government acting against corporate marketing rather than telling people they can't buy soda. It would take a generation or two, like with tobacco companies, but soft drink companies would wither and soft drink consumption would be less of a public health issue. Youre not wrong that humans make bad decisions, for sure. Im arguing that the greater evil is the Government making the decision for us, even if it protects us from our own bad decisions. Maybe im wrong though, and im not saying that in a sarcastic or pithy way. It can be a problem society as a whole needs to address, im debating the method in which it gets addressed :D
My perspective on this is that government is people. Government is a vehicle by which the populace in general can have experts make informed decisions on topics rather than requiring every citizen to become an expert or make bad decisions. But again, I'm not arguing for the government to make decisions for people here. I'm arguing for the government to block manipulation and bad information to make it easier for people to make better decisions.
Sort of like mandating that food has nutrition information and ingredients printed on the packaging. A related field where I'd like to see the federal government step in is the mess that is the olive oil market in the United States. Some companies just lie on their packaging, and others use meaningless but pleasant sounding buzzwords.
On November 03 2018 03:16 Tempest wrote:
Anyways gents, im off of work now, headed home to catch the finals. Ive enjoyed the discussions, ill probably stay awhile, thanks for being intelligent and willing to converse civilly!
It's been a pleasure talking to you.
|
No amount of tax changes has affected my income more than actually affordable healthcare would.
|
where is kwark? hes our resident tax expert
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
