http://media1.giphy.com/media/ycAawAGYs98Xu/200_s.gif
Printable View
*Vomits* It's hard to live in America now a days.
Socialism is killing America, but it's socialism towards the corporations, not people, that is killing America. Most of our tax money goes to corporations, not people. Yes, there are people on welfare/food stamps, but most of that goes to people who work **** jobs that don't pay anything. McDonalds and Walmart alone cost the American taxpayers around 7 billion a year in welfare in order for their employees to be able to live (google Walmart and McDonalds welfare, and just read a little). And these are two of the most profitable companies IN THE WORLD. So yes, corporate socialism is killing America and it's economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumbs
And yes, Obama is a disaster...one of the worst presidents in the history of the U.S. Here comes the end of the American empire; all empires have to end eventually...
And don't even get me started on all of the bank bailouts....capitalism at it's finest!
Hi, my name is FromDownBelow and I have no idea what Socialism is.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromDownBelow
Really, dick? Should i have said corporate socialism instead? Which is what I meant by socialism towards corporations...Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/06/01/how-corporate-socialism-destroys/
"That’s how corporate socialism works — privatize gains, socialize losses and destroy competitors who do not get subsidies."
The US does have problems. So does everyone else. However, your post is full of ridiculous stereotypes that you got from your media, which is motivated by ideology and the natural hatred of the guy that is perceived as the big boy on the block. I suggest you expand your mind and stop being motivated by resentment.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffi
I think they hav e social security, we have obama care now, poor is because they won't raise the minium wage to $15 an hour thank you republicans, religious fanatacis are a response to the anthiest and secular fanatacis who want gay marriage and to murder babies and no fault divorce, cowboy president wasn't too bad but I'd not for a republican president again because they ruin the economy but I prefer their policies to the dems socially.
hmm yes there is Social Security which steals from the working and gives to those who are old enough to collect it instead of investing the money put into it.. If Obama care will be run like the VA like they said they want to we are all going to die just like the vets. People are POOR because the war on poverty keeps people dependent on government doesnt help them get out of poverty.. Go ahead and raise the min wage.. lol guess you didnt take econ 101.. if you have 100 dollars to pay an employee at 10$ an hour.. he can work 10 hours... raise the min wage to 15$ an hour the business owner still only has 100$ to pay that employee.. Just look at what happened in Seattle.. They raised the min wage guess what happened.. people lost healthcare.. lost their free parking.. lost their 401k.. lost their free food... lost overtime.. THEY STILL NET THE SAME AMOUNT LOL.... Didnt change a dam thing... Problem 1 in the us.. When people in democracy figure out they can vote themselves benefits the country starts to decline. Problem 2 in the us.. The family unit is a wreck.. sorry single mothers have a super hard time raising families on their own. thus poverty is a result, crime is a result when you lose male role-models, we have no family structure anymore and when you lose that people are even more dependent on the government. Which is why people like yourself like those DEMs Keep people dependent on the government and they will vote the correct way to keep getting those handouts.. When the parasites outnumber the producers its Game over.. Just call us Greece...Quote:
Originally Posted by himmlersberg
The above post says it all. America is messed up. The problem is American culture, which is messed up.
Why is the world so messed up? It isn't just america. It is and forever will be the entire world. Unless you are some undiscovered tribe with taboo beliefs.
Holland isn't messed up! We rock!
good one :-PQuote:
Originally Posted by Bukharistan
Good one aswell!Quote:
good one :-P
holland sucks
That's why everyone comes to visit this little paradise. We're rich, we can do whatever we want, we're happy. Weather is getting better aswell due to global warming, and even if it isn't, we have enough money and leisure time to go on vacation alllll year round :D
We're good at footy aswell which makes our little country very proud. Best infrastructure in the world, the most innovative region in the world aswell. Best DJs and danceparty's... the list can go on. God we're so lucky and happy in Holland at times I have to force myself to cry to remember that emotion.
Its the me-first attitude that permeates society these days. No one thinks about "how can I benefit my community" or "wow, that person over there needs help" ...or even, simply, "man, I'm in a rough spot, I need to work hard to get out of it". Everyone sits back and expects things handed to them. We've been conditioned to be this way through the government and the media.
Sorry, didn't mean to generalize...not everyone falls into the above categories.
I am not an American, I am an Asian, but I do admire US in several aspects. The people living in this country are very opened than the others, this is the one thing I like it a lot. Less barbarians, more words on the round table. Many things can be put into talk and discussions, in many countries out in the world, we are unable to do that. Subjects have been limited, threatened and tabooed, you bring it up, it simply means you are trying to challenge them in an offending way.
It is ironic to say, when being Americans yourself some of you do not support Obama, but many of the people out here does not feel Obama "rejective". I believe that is the case. It is not like we actually do "like" him since he isn't really related to us anyway, but from the fact that many of the poorer and middle class in American actually votes for Obama while the rich ones reject him, all over the world we all can see that in the election, it somehow tells us that this is the guy that has a will to make a difference for his country.
For someone who do not have the support from the richer class but the middle class of his countrymen, it is already assumed and predicted, things won't go so well on him. Already understood many will try to trash him, make him reputation down. I don't know much about your country but for a man who rather choose to stand on the poorer's side, at least give this guy a clap and don't treat him so badly, for picking a richer side to stand at is rather easy, and picking a poorer side to stand at, is stupid. And it is his stupidity for not siding on the rich ones that wins the heart of the many people out there.
All over the world in this very century, we are all trying to make our own country, a better place. We are responsible of making our own country a better place. Many wants to make their country better, but good guys just do not like to involve into politics. We already realize now the votes on our hands aren't a magical charm that will work on building a country we want, it is just not enough. We need more good people in the politics.
As someone who loves my country and the ideals it was founded on it really sickens me to see what the USA has become. Our government is OWNED by corporations and the 1% (really the .01 percent) and our so called media is more then happy to defend and protect this madness. They have bought most of our politicians and its clear as day that our representatives no longer represent us, only who pays them the most. Meanwhile most people are still oblivious to the magnitude of this, some are waking up but not enough to stop it. In 2 days the people of this country is most likely going to put the republicans back in charge of our congress (by people I mean the 45% of this country that will actually vote in the election). Im not saying the democrats are all that great either, many of them are part of the problem too but to think that this voting public can be so persuaded from big money propaganda that they put the party of big money itself back in power is frightening.
There is some hope out there. First and foremost we must fight for a constitutional amendment to end money in politics and say that corporations are not people and money is not speech. I think thats common sense but the supreme court seems to disagree so we need an amendment to make it clear to them. Also we need to get more people to vote. seems quite simple as well but takes a lot of work. If more people vote and are engaged in the political process we'll probably elect better politicians and maybe we'd have a functioning government again.
This is not a partisan issue at all. Big money corporations dont care if ur liberal or conservative or whatever. They only care about 1 thing, the bottom line. And if you are in their way its a bad day for you regardless of who u vote for. So all people in USA out there look this up online and sign a petition, sign all of them, make ur voice heard!
And for all non Americans out there all I can say is I hope u still believe in us, because right now I dont.
Ok rant over. Back to my football, bacon cheeseburgers and internet porn haha!
What you need isn't an amendment to patch the symptoms(although that should really be done anyway), you really ought to change your outdated federal election system, it's 200 years out of date, it was necessary for running a large country 200 years ago because communication was hard back then. Especially with a small federal state without far reaching powers but nowadays your federal state is just as large as any other government with the federal government running most things it chooses to run. And this is a good thing in my opinion, a small state doesn't work, that just means you're giving corporations a free run to do whatever they want, you need a large with lots of regulations and investigative powers to keep the corporations in check, you need a large government which can say you broke the law so now we're seizing your assets wether you want to or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller*
There's really not that much difference between the US and a smaller country. Therefore the US needs to make it easier to get a seat in congress/senate, instead of the extremely crappy "first one across the line" you inherited from the british.
If it was easier to elect someone into power(and thus out of power) and easier for parties to get representation in the senate/congress(such as a proportional election) where you don't need to get 50% of the votes in a district to get that districts seat(which is bloody hard, nearly impossible except for 1-2, maaaybe 3 parties), instead if you get 10% of the votes(which is a whole lot easier because your sympathizers don't need to all live in one place) you get 10% of the seats.
Maybe then the voter turnout could go up because people might actually feel that their vote is worth something. And if it's easier to get rid of corrupt politicians who take bribes("campaign contributions") then maybe you could return power to the masses rather than leave it in the hands of the wealthy.
Because as long as you keep your current election system you're not gonna get the other ones fixed because the politicians will NEVER prevent the corporations from bribing them, not after they've gotten a taste of it. Power begets power, for the sake of power.
I've never understood this fear. The 1% has as much money and power as they do because you gave it to them. They have your business. Even if the representatives are in someone's pocket (and yea, they totally are), you are still being represented because Mr. Moneybags is trying to get legislation passed that's good for business. Generally speaking, if it's good for business for them, it's good for business for you (unless you're like a small business owner or something, then it's usually not)Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller*
If it's good for big business it's usually bad for consumers, it's usually bad for their employees, it's usually bad for liberty and freedom of speech, just look at the bull**** the *AA'S are trying to push in the name of "combating piracy".Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
For example I'd definitely say it isn't really in the public's interest to be hunting and prosecuting individual file sharers, and especially not to be hitting them with the absurd damage claims they are. It's definitely not in the public's interest to force ISP's to filter what their customers can see.
So yeah, if it's good for big business it's usually bad for most everybody not part of big business. The oil and chemical industry would love to do away with any environmental legislation there is because it'd be cheaper for them to do business without it.
I can't take you seriously when you start talking about freedom of speech
No way man. We've had this "trickle down" economics crap in this country for 34 years, the system touted by the wealthy elite, and it has done nothing for regular citizens. Wages have been stagnant for a long time and all they wanna do is cut what little safety net is there to help people. Not to mention all the pollution and tax dodging they always want to protect. What has been good for business has been crap for everyone else.
And its not about who has money anyway, thats a debate for another time. This is about the rich using their money to influence elections and the political process. We are supposed to be a democracy, 1 man 1 woman 1 vote, no matter how much money u have. But if 6 billionaires can finance their own candidates and flood the airwaves with ads then that will influence elections and how politicians govern. And most of the time the crap they peddle in these ads are lies anyway.
We probably do need some serious reform the the election system way beyond just getting money out of it. But federalism isnt going anywhere in America. States will never relinquish what powers they have and if anything is only getting worse. Sometimes I wonder if some of these states really will secede again. Not sure what the reaction would be if that happened, another civil war? I dont think the geography lends itself to that again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
You're more than welcomed to fund political ads supporting candidates you support. They're American citizens just the same as you are, so why can't they do the same thing you can? Everyone still has 1 vote. It's not like they're rigging elections. It's not their fault the majority of Americans are too retarded to know what they're voting for. You can also make the case that those people are representing a majority, economically speaking. If Walmart supports one candidate, and millions of people support Walmart, it logically follows that those millions of people support that candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller*
C'mon ur saying I can have as much influence on the political process as a billionaire? Half the country couldn't compete with that kind of money. Thats just naive to think that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
But none of this is what the founders intended. They were very specific in their warnings of monied interests getting involved with government.
And they are rigging elections with voter ID laws and cutting back on early voting days, because they know if more people vote they will lose. So its not just some honest debate between 2 ideologies. Its straight up fixing the system in their favor.
Which founder? I think you'd find a lot of them found it perfectly acceptable and proper that a wealthy aristocracy had the most power in determining what goes in this country, certainly among the revolutionary lot. It wasn't until some time afterward that you really saw a push to democratize the vote to all men regardless of income or land ownership.
The system has been out of any public control, oversight, or visibility for some time now. No one with power is going to let the public have any say in America's foreign policy, for instance - that **** is tightly controlled, even when the people are fully aware of what is happening in the world.
Most people don't realize that their leaders aren't really playing in the same kingdom, and that the elite in this country have convinced the masses to accept a structured acres farmout and think it's a good thing.
So you're saying that companies wouldn't love to limit or remove your ability to report publicly about a bad product of theirs... if they could?Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
They're in it to make money so charging the highest price for the cheapest(crappiest) product they can is a good way to go, if they could prevent ppl from publicizing just how bad that product is they'd do it in a heartbeat.
If they could prevent employees from whistle blowing they would in a heartbeat.
I think that there is a Supreme Court ruling which says secession isn't legal under the US constitution. And if the states retain what powers they have that's fine, I meant how federal elections are handled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller*
No, that's a ridiculous logical fallacy. It's called an association fallacy, it's the same as this example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
John Doe is a Murderer, John Doe shops at Walmart, therefore everybody who shops at Walmart is a murderer.
How about another one, Millions of people voted for George W Bush, GWB invaded Iraq which lead to the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, therefore anybody who voted for GWB supports killing innocent civilians.
Or how about this one, The US Military is funded by taxes, the US military kills innocent people in Iraq(whether it's by accident or not), therefore anybody who pays taxes to the US Government supports killing innocent civilians.
There is simply no data to logically connect those two statements.
That's not what I said. I said you have a vote and they have a vote. Bill Gates doesn't vote 20,000 times. He votes once, just like you. But while you're bringing it up, why is having more influence not fair? It's not fair that Obama was a better public speaker than Romney? Of course it's fair. Much like utopia, we're all playing the same game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller*
As noobium pointed out, the founders were very ok with the rich dominating the poor. Here's a fun fact, the income tax was originally illegal.Quote:
But none of this is what the founders intended. They were very specific in their warnings of monied interests getting involved with government.
So let me get this straight. We have two kinds of voters here:Quote:
And they are rigging elections with voter ID laws and cutting back on early voting days, because they know if more people vote they will lose. So its not just some honest debate between 2 ideologies. Its straight up fixing the system in their favor.
a.) The educated, well-informed voter that knows all the political campaign ads are bull**** and is determined to fight.
b.) The idiot that thinks George Bush was one of the greatest presidents of all time because that wolf ad he ran was so damn cool. Honestly surprised s/he can tie their own shoes.
You're telling me that Voter ID laws and less early voting is going to turn more away voter a than voter b?
Why did people boycott Chick fil A when they publicly came out against gay marriage? Why did others immediately go out and get Chick fil A?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
People know that companies like Nike and Apple use sweat shops with miserable working conditions. When they continue to pump money into those companies they're supporting their decisions. Where you put your money is often times just as political as who you vote for, whether you're aware of it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobium
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson
“The power of all corporations ought to be limited, [...] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
— James Madison
Those are just 2 that I know of. There are many more.
Your right that some of the founders had a more aristocratic point of view and democracy has had to grow since then with universal suffrage and direct election of senators. But why give that all away now that we have it. Things may not be unacceptable for you now but this is a dangerous slippery slope here (and I dont use that argument that much) and eventually it will hit u if it hasnt yet.
And your right about most politicians playing for the same team, team money.
Because those people made a concious choice to do so, most people doesn't, they make a passive one and buy from whoever is cheaper. Their morals or political leanings usually play very little part in that decision, convenience does.(which is why capitalism is as much of a utopia as communism is, neither can work in reality, communism because people are inherently selfish and capitalism because no consumer has the time or energy to weigh all the variables and pick the perfect choice when buying something)Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
For the same reason people could keep rubberstamping papers ordering the mass murder of jews during WWII, because there's a distance from you and the act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
To you it's just numbers/letters on a paper and you don't actually connect to said wrongful act in any meaningful manner.
You would hardly condone it when it happened in your face next door but when it's on the other side of the planet it's just numbers and letters on a paper and to most people it then becomes more important how the shoes or smartphone looks or how much it costs.
So said act is not a concious political or moral choice, it's a passive one, you simply don't care enough to make a stand(which is arguably a choice in and of itself).
It's also why natural disasters that hit tourist resorts get 100 times the relief funding of a natural disaster that affects a more rural area even if it kills a lot more people.
If you can easily imagine something happening to you or to a place you know then it becomes a lot more emotionally charged.
How sure are you of that? And does "failure to render assistance" count?Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
1) No we are not playing the same game. When a billionaire or corporation buys an election or bribes a politician (sadly most of it legal) he is essentially making himself the only vote that counts. Its hardly ever blatant, they are smart enough to keep it under the radar. That stuff happens all the time whether its straight donations or more often financing from the PACs and think tanks. How can Joe Shmo citizen compete with that? How is that a level playing field? Theres no way u can honestly say it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
2) So we've had elections in the country for 200 years and no ID was ever needed (unless u were black in the south before 1965, not ID exactly but plenty of other tricks) and now we suddenly need all these new laws to protect from the 0.001% of voter fraud out there? Really? ID laws may not change every election but they can have a big impact on close elections and many are close these days. And ID laws have been shown to affect minorities, young people and poor people more then anyone else, and guess which way those people vote most the time.
And no a misinformed or uninterested voter is not stupid, they probably have a lot going on in life and just dont have time to invest in paying attention. Unfortunately these are the people easily persuaded by ads and propaganda. There are many types of voters who vote for many different reasons I just want them to all be as informed as possible regardless of who they vote for.
Yes, that is how it plays out. It's a barrier that is more likely to affect, for example, a black man living in an inner city project who might not have his own transportation and has to travel further to file the necessary paperwork, than a white yahoo who wants to vote Bush because it gives him a boner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
I'd be more worried about gerrymandered districts which guarantee republican seats in congress, voter intimidation, and outright vote fraud, but it's a valid concern...
Oh, things are definitely unacceptable to me already. I would be naive to think that change can occur through this system, but I can strike no on all the proposals I hate and make protest votes against the few politicians I've had the misfortune of meeting in person, and for a while I think I'm accomplishing something. That, and I can raise property taxes on all the middle-class punks so they can pay for public transportation or something they really hate, that really gets their craw.Quote:
Your right that some of the founders had a more aristocratic point of view and democracy has had to grow since then with universal suffrage and direct election of senators. But why give that all away now that we have it. Things may not be unacceptable for you now but this is a dangerous slippery slope here (and I dont use that argument that much) and eventually it will hit u if it hasnt yet.
A passive choice is still a choice. Ignorance and laziness aren't good excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
I'd be pretty comfortable making a claim that at least 51% of Americans have little to no understanding of current political issues and policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyB
1. You are playing the same game. You want X to win. Mr Moneybags wants Y to win. You'll both campaign fair and square within the rules. That's as fair as it needs to be. There's nothing unfair about the fact that Mr. Moneybags is just much more effective at helping a campaign than you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keller*
2. The latest reliable data I could find on illegal immigrants was from 2011, where ~11.5 million people were illegal immigrants. That's roughly 3.7% of the country. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "lock up the borders" nut by any means, but I do believe that only citizens should be voting.
And yes, misinformed and uninterested voters who insist on voting are stupid. If you're life is so busy that you can't possibly find time to get informed on the issues you'll be voting on, don't vote. You blindly checking a box could have disastrous effects on people's lives.
True but it's oh so human. And it's not simply out of ignorance, most ppl ought to know about apple/shoemaker etc sweatshops by now, but nobody could possibly keep up with ALL the factors they need to keep up with to make an informed choice on everything. And hence the notice of informed choice is more or less an illusion. Sure you can get more informed on a given issue but it'll mean you're ignoring something else somewhere else because there's more information being created on a monthly basis than we could hope to process in our entire life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Sure it is, that means he is voting with his money and your vote will be more or less worthless because when the only ppl who are able to run for office are the ones who have already been bribed by Mr.Moneybags it's irrelevant where you cast your vote, Mr.Moneybags win either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
A government where the wealthy rule isn't called a democracy, it's called a Timocracy and is a form of authoritarian rule where the few rule the many, it's essentially the same as an aristocracy, the definition of the aristocrats are just slightly different.
So hence, if you want to maintain a democracy you can't allow the rich to bribe elected officials or it'll cease to be a democracy. It differs only in name from what Iran is doing with a religious council deciding who can run for office, and would you call Iran or China a democracy?... I don't think so.