2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I guess I've just always detested the line of thinking that hard work is inherently enough to get to the top. Even ignoring all the practical reasons that won't happen, the skills that make a good worker do not make a good CEO just as the skills that make a good soldier do not make for a good general.

It isn’t enough. I do, think that people shouldn’t be aided for NOT working hard.

Nobody's getting aided because they aren't working hard. The most radical neo-communist America-destroying policies (or whatever Fox is calling them nowadays) that we have apply to people who do work hard, but don't make much money doing it.
I mean, exactly how does a $15 minimum wage benefit anyone who isn't working?

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

It isn’t enough. I do, think that people shouldn’t be aided for NOT working hard.

Nobody's getting aided because they aren't working hard. The most radical neo-communist America-destroying policies (or whatever Fox is calling them nowadays) that we have apply to people who do work hard, but don't make much money doing it.
I mean, exactly how does a $15 minimum wage benefit anyone who isn't working?

Government handouts sure do encourage people not to work. Why work when you can live of the government and do potentially as well as someone who does work but isn't successful? See the issue with this?

[Nakena]

Either way, allow me to point out the obvious fact that getting Trump out of office is meaningless if his replacement offers no substantial change in policy.

Entirely true.

Well, tens of thousands of Americans are still dying from our predatory private health insurance system, wages are still declining relative to inflation and cost of living, the military industrial complex is still leeching trillions of dollars from the American people so they can make money carpet bombing preschools in Yemen, the biggest corporations still pay literally zero in income tax, the wealth gap continues to grow, and we're still not doing anything to mitigate the damage of climate change that is going to lead to wars over water and the largest mass migration in human history, BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS A D NEXT TO THEIR NAME NOW AND ISN'T ORANGE!!! Victory!

You nailed it.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Then how do you explain the countries with tightly regulated real estate markets that don't have housing crises like we had?

We have neither a perfectly regulated or or free housing market. The combination is what is killing is, same as with healthcare.

I found an article that sums up the problems with liberal socialism or whatever you are calling it these days. https://nypost.com/2018/08/05/sorry-dem ... oison/amp/

Any article with the title "sorry democratic socialists you're still pushing poison" is something so obviously biased that I'm not even going to bother reading it. If you're not going to even attempt to find sources that try to examine the situation apolitically, then I'm either not going to dignify your posts with a response or cite obvious Marxist propaganda, can't decide which I would enjoy more.

[Ifreann]

So you agree that hard work isn't fairly rewarded. Maybe you should vote for Sanders.

The reward is eventually becoming successful.

No it's not. The very large majority of people never become "successful". It's simply not possible, even though everyone involved will be working very hard. And potential future success can't be used to pay rent or buy medicine. Shouldn't hard work be rewarded with a comfortable life now?

You shouldn’t expect to be payed as much as the CEO. Also, I can tell you from personal experience that CEOs and executives don’t sit and twiddle their thumbs all day. I knew a CEO who was working about 75 hours a week. No joke.

And no doubt they were making many times more than all the other people in the company working as hard or harder.

---

And what of all the people who work 80+ hours a week and don't become CEO?

Wage slavery! But they had either bad luck, got caught into a dead end or just didn had it what it took to get to the top.

So it isn't true that hard work can take you anywhere.

[Nakena]

Nobody's getting aided because they aren't working hard. The most radical neo-communist America-destroying policies (or whatever Fox is calling them nowadays) that we have apply to people who do work hard, but don't make much money doing it.
I mean, exactly how does a $15 minimum wage benefit anyone who isn't working?

Government handouts sure do encourage people not to work. Why work when you can live of the government and do potentially as well as someone who does work but isn't successful? See the issue with this?

Like the big corporate subsidies or the foreign aid to Israel? ;)

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

We have neither a perfectly regulated or or free housing market. The combination is what is killing is, same as with healthcare.

I found an article that sums up the problems with liberal socialism or whatever you are calling it these days. https://nypost.com/2018/08/05/sorry-dem ... oison/amp/

Any article with the title "sorry democratic socialists you're still pushing poison" is something so obviously biased that I'm not even going to bother reading it. If you're not going to even attempt to find sources that try to examine the situation apolitically, then I'm either not going to dignify your posts with a response or cite obvious Marxist propaganda, can't decide which I would enjoy more.

It is biased. It is an opinion piece. That is literally their point! You don't want to read it, fine.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Nobody's getting aided because they aren't working hard. The most radical neo-communist America-destroying policies (or whatever Fox is calling them nowadays) that we have apply to people who do work hard, but don't make much money doing it.
I mean, exactly how does a $15 minimum wage benefit anyone who isn't working?

Government handouts sure do encourage people not to work. Why work when you can live of the government and do potentially as well as someone who does work but isn't successful? See the issue with this?

Thing is, nobody can live off of welfare alone. It's there to aid people who work low-paying jobs, because those jobs don't provide a living wage.
Your point would be valid if you were describing the situation accurately, but you're just... not.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Any article with the title "sorry democratic socialists you're still pushing poison" is something so obviously biased that I'm not even going to bother reading it. If you're not going to even attempt to find sources that try to examine the situation apolitically, then I'm either not going to dignify your posts with a response or cite obvious Marxist propaganda, can't decide which I would enjoy more.

It is biased. It is an opinion piece. That is literally their point! You don't want to read it, fine.

The Communist Manifesto is also an opinion piece. Would you consider it valid if I cited that to describe my problems with capitalism?

[Ifreann]

Nobody's getting aided because they aren't working hard. The most radical neo-communist America-destroying policies (or whatever Fox is calling them nowadays) that we have apply to people who do work hard, but don't make much money doing it.
I mean, exactly how does a $15 minimum wage benefit anyone who isn't working?

Government handouts sure do encourage people not to work. Why work when you can live of the government and do potentially as well as someone who does work but isn't successful? See the issue with this?

Have you ever used Wikipedia?

[Nakena]

Wage slavery! But they had either bad luck, got caught into a dead end or just didn had it what it took to get to the top.

So it isn't true that hard work can take you anywhere.

Right.

Government handouts sure do encourage people not to work. Why work when you can live of the government and do potentially as well as someone who does work but isn't successful? See the issue with this?

Thing is, nobody can live off of welfare alone. It's there to aid people who work low-paying jobs, because those jobs don't provide a living wage.
Your point would be valid if you were describing the situation accurately, but you're just... not.

Welfare is there to aid people who would otherwise become homeless and might be forced to rob a grocery store to eat, which in turn increases crime and has them end up being a prisoner which costs the state more than giving them some welfare.

It prevents people from getting permanently economically unproductive. It is a reasonable investment.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Government handouts sure do encourage people not to work. Why work when you can live of the government and do potentially as well as someone who does work but isn't successful? See the issue with this?

Like the big corporate subsidies or the foreign aid to Israel?

Neither. You get what I am saying. The bottom percentage basically receives far more money from the government than they will ever pay in taxes. (Good) affordable healthcare isn't a bad thing. Helping out people in a genuinely disadvantaged situation is good too! The issue is, our economy just cannot pay to give everyone everything.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

It is biased. It is an opinion piece. That is literally their point! You don't want to read it, fine.

The Communist Manifesto is also an opinion piece. Would you consider it valid if I cited that to describe my problems with capitalism?

Yes. I would just debunk them. You can argue against this too, I haven't submitted it as evidence. It is just a supplement to my argument.

[Nakena]

Like the big corporate subsidies or the foreign aid to Israel? ;)

Neither. You get what I am saying. The bottom percentage basically receives far more money from the government than they will ever pay in taxes. (Good) affordable healthcare isn't a bad thing. Helping out people in a genuinely disadvantaged situation is good too! The issue is, our economy just cannot pay to give everyone everything.

I think we do agree here. :)

[Ifreann]

Like the big corporate subsidies or the foreign aid to Israel?

Neither. You get what I am saying. The bottom percentage basically receives far more money from the government than they will ever pay in taxes. (Good) affordable healthcare isn't a bad thing. Helping out people in a genuinely disadvantaged situation is good too! The issue is, our economy just cannot pay to give everyone everything.

Big corporations receive far more from the government than they pay in taxes. But yeah, the problem is that the people with no money aren't paying more in taxes.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The Communist Manifesto is also an opinion piece. Would you consider it valid if I cited that to describe my problems with capitalism?

Yes. I would just debunk them. You can argue against this too, I haven't submitted it as evidence. It is just a supplement to my argument.

Huh, you genuinely don't see the problems with using biased sources. Interesting.
Anyway, do you have any substantial proof that social democracy will harm the USA when it has shown to be beneficial to most developed countries that have tried it?

[Nakena]

Yes. I would just debunk them. You can argue against this too, I haven't submitted it as evidence. It is just a supplement to my argument.

Huh, you genuinely don't see the problems with using biased sources. Interesting.
Anyway, do you have any substantial proof that social democracy will harm the USA when it has shown to be beneficial to most developed countries that have tried it?

The problem might be that the concepts social democracy and socialism are used interchangeably in the american political discourse.

The fact that Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist does not makes this any easier.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Huh, you genuinely don't see the problems with using biased sources. Interesting.
Anyway, do you have any substantial proof that social democracy will harm the USA when it has shown to be beneficial to most developed countries that have tried it?

The problem might be that the concepts social democracy and socialism are used interchangeably in the american political discourse.

The fact that Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist does not makes this any easier.

I'm about 85% sure that the reason he calls himself a socialist is because right-wingers have been referring to anything even mildly left-wing as socialism for, quite literally, as long as socialism has existed.

[Nakena]

The problem might be that the concepts social democracy and socialism are used interchangeably in the american political discourse.

The fact that Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist does not makes this any easier.

I'm about 85% sure that the reason he calls himself a socialist is because right-wingers have been referring to anything even mildly left-wing as socialism for, quite literally, as long as socialism has existed.

I would not be surprised. Theres also right-wing socialists however. :^)

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I'm about 85% sure that the reason he calls himself a socialist is because right-wingers have been referring to anything even mildly left-wing as socialism for, quite literally, as long as socialism has existed.

I would not be surprised. Theres also right-wing socialists however. :^)

Strasserists are, to be fair, a bit of an outlier.

[Tarsonis]

Well firstly, the AR-15 is not fully automatic, it's semi auto, which also coincidentally means it's not an Assault riffle as it's limited to just a semi-auto operation and no other variant. (It is of course illegal to modify a semi-auto into a full-auto, without a Class III ATF license.) The semi-automatic operation is ideal for hunting as it allows the shooter to fire a second round without having to break sight picture to chamber a new round, and then regain sight picture to fire a second round, and more if needed. Secondly, the .223 caliber is actually a great hunting round, it's powerful enough to take down larger game like deer, but small enough that its entry hole can be easily concealed by taxidermists.


Now in general, I'm not opposed to the current status quo, where Automatic Weapons are legal, just tightly regulated by ATF. But if the choice is between fully legal or fully illegal, I'm gonna say fully legal. I'll always lean towards protecting rights rather than abridging rights.


I think you need to do more research because your understanding of types of weaponry and categories is inadequate here. You seem to, here and other places, be conflating certain types of weaponry, specifically here Military Style and Automatic Weaponry, as those are not synonymous terms. Not trying to be dismissive, but 99% of the reason the Democrats keep getting owned on gun control, is because the actual main proponents of gun control measures, usually know dick about fire arms. See "ghost gun press conference" for an example.

I should also point out here, that I would prefer someone else not determine the use of weapons for me. An AR-15 rifle is just as adept at home protection as is a handgun, and arguably more so. It should be up to me to decide what weapons to use to defend my home/self/family. Now some reasonable restrictions could apply, like no RPGS, but that also begs the question is an RPG any worse than a semi-auto rifle? Knee Jerk says yes, but I can make an argument that it's not.



To counter this point I'd suggest looking at mass violence that wasn't considered a mass shooting. Such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster. The ability to commit wanton destruction easily and efficiently, has arguably been much more readily available to the American Public rather than not.

Also your point about fire rate is incorrect. Up until 1934 you could buy a thompson submachine gun over the counter without a license, and the BAR as well. Those were fully automatic weapons with unprecedented fire-rates for their time. This is actually a good example of a gun control measure that didn't work. The NFA of 1934 was literally passed to restrict access to these weapons due to their high profile nature as weapons of choice by "gangsters." The prohibition did little actually prevent them from getting such weapons, and/or prevent their violence. Repealing Prohibition (of alcohol) and a strong anti-mafia oriented FBI are what ultimately did them in. Weapons are the red herring here, because people don't really know how to get a handle on the issue which is rooted in many aspects of American life and culture. So they go after weapons rather than mental health issues for instance. There's a lot more evidence to suggest that gun control has little effect on gun violence. https://reason.com/2017/10/04/a-statist ... support-f/
Yes but can't you see how that's an abuse of the weapon rather than what the overwhelming vast majority of owners use it for? There are over 10 Million AR-15 or equivalent weapons owned in the US, and the last major mass shooting involving an AR-15 was at my old high school, over a year ago. If the weapons were really that big a problem, we'd be having multiple mass shootings every day.




Okay but that's an entirely different premise than "they should be banned." On this I'm much more agreeable, but it does open a can of words, of what's the standard and can it be abused to illegitimately deny people their rights. Its up there with literacy tests for voting. Yes ideally if someones going to fill out a ballot they should be able to read said ballot. Seems like a rather benign standard, but we had to get rid of that because it was being abused to disenfranchise millions of voters. Today, you cannot own a CDL if you get medical Marijuana for any reason, in some states. That's bullshit, if anything pot will make you less likely to blow away your co-workers rather than more.




The problem with that is (1)self armament is a right not a privilege, and (2) the law is restrictive not permissive. You need to provide good reason for me not to have something, I do not have to justify the use or nonuse of my rights.


If multiple people break into my home, I need to be able to put them all down as quickly as possible. One of the many reasons semi-automatic weapons are ideal for home defense. I can think of a dozen others, but I really don't need to. That one reason is sufficient.


You've clearly never encountered a person hopped up on PCP/Meth/bath salts. Routinely they take rounds and keep on coming. It's actually the reason a great deal of Somalia Conflict vets (Black Hawk Down) prefer the .45 to the 9mm. Its stoping power helped against combatants high on PCP, where as the 9mm's penetrating abilities were a hinderance. The reality is there are great deal of hostile elements right here in the city, albeit rare.

[1]: Again, I apologize for being unclear. Here, I was referring to modifications to the AR-15 that make it a full-auto weapon, as well as more indirectly to guns that are full-auto by default. Since you apparently agree with my position on this issue in every significant way, I'll move on.
[2]: I know that "military-style" and "fully automatic" aren't synonyms (and considering that nearly every type of gun was either used by the military at some point or is based on something that was, it also technically applies to all firearms). I admit that I don't know a whole lot about terminology, but I also don't think you need to.

But you really do. You need to know the difference between a clip, a magazine, and a belt. You need to know the difference between an automatic, semi-outmatic, pump action, bolt action, muzzle loader, breach loader(well this mainly applies to artillery and double barrel shotguns) etc. Because these are all different things that have different qualities as they apply to the gun debate. So you/everyone needs to be informed on the matter. If for no other reason than, you don't look like this fool.

To address the point, yes, a fully automatic weapon would be more useful for home defense than a handgun, but at the same time, it would also be more useful for a break in. As with any freedom, one must weigh the benefits of having it against the damage done by those who abuse it, and determine the scope of the freedom based on that. That's the reason why the First Amendment doesn't protect slander and libel.

Yes but the ban here is only going to affect me the law abiding citizen, not the criminals who are breaking into my house. So while they are better both for defense and assault, banning them only weakens my defense, not the assault.

[2.1]: I don't see how that's relevant to this. I was talking specifically about mass shootings. Of course mass murder happened even before the advent of automatic weaponry, but that doesn't mean that we should make it any easier than it has to be.

Because, the inclination to murder mass amounts of people, isn't a new phenomenon. A ban will not prevent mass violence, it'll just deprive millions of people of rights they weren't abusing.

And I was talking about gun control because that was the topic of discussion. It's not the only thing that needs to be done, but rather just one part of a much more expansive project. Fixing problems we've been plagued with for decades wouldn't be easy even if there weren't organizations with lots of money, a tradition of political lobbying, and a vested interest in making sure that the problem isn't solved - looking at you, NRA - but other nations could solve this problem, then so can America.

The point is they haven't. GB is now trying to ban knives, because banning guns hasn't stopped the violence problem. In Nice an extremist using a truck, killed 86 people in a matter of seconds by driving on the sidewalk. Not to mention the Paris terror attacks using illegal weapons. They have reduced "mass shootings" sure but they haven't touched mass violence. So you can imagine why pro-gunners find the mass shooting argument disingenuous, because it's not geared at stopping violence, it's only geared at stopping a specific type of violence, at the expense of rights. To us it's a red herring, an excuse to ban guns, and not a good reason. 2 out of 3 gun deaths in this country are suicides. Banning guns won't stop suicides.

[2.2]: We still have more mass shootings per capita than any other developed nation. Fixing our screwed up mental health system is the top priority here, but to be honest, I'm willing to accept more-or-less status quo when it comes to gun restrictions, aside from perhaps more extensive background checks when it comes to people buying guns that can be easily modified into something dangerously illegal, such as the AR-15 - there's nothing particularly wrong with the gun itself, but since it isn't difficult to modify it into a fully automatic weapon, there should be a degree of certainty that that won't happen as well as documentation to tell us where the gun came from if it ends up being modified in such a way.

I don't have issues with universal background checks. But databasing gives me pause. Databasing is a potential precursor to confiscation.

Basically, if we can demand information about why you want legal drugs on the grounds that they can be used to make illegal drugs (which is, generally speaking, why most prescription drugs aren't over-the-counter), then we can also demand information about why you want legal weapons on the grounds that they can be used to make illegal weapons.

Yes but NyQuil isn't mentioned in the Constitution, hence the difficulty.

[2.3]: Guess why I've never once (unironically) said we should repeal the Second Amendment. I'm a loyal resident of the Lone Star State, I know exactly how important guns are to both self-defense and American culture as a whole.
And you do raise a good point about background checks being used to deny people their rights. I don't have an answer for that at the moment, but given enough time I'll come up with one.

Okay.

[2.4]: Slander and libel are illegal despite the fact that the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. Adding exceptions to amendments is not without precedent.

This is true, but those restrictions are justified and subject to different considerations. While I don't say any gun law is unconstitutional, as with the first amendment, any restriction must be justified in law and juris prudence. Something that has yet to adequately be done, which is why all these gun bans are getting struck down in even some liberal courts like in Illinois.

And I'm mostly trying to build exceptions so that things that would be a crime for an ordinary citizen would be made legal if there's a good reason for them to need to break the law, but if it makes you happier, I could just not include the exceptions.

You're not getting. Exceptions where rights are concerned, are where rights might need to be abridged, not where exercising rights become allowed. The very premise of a right is that it's not something the Government grants, but that it protects. If it's given to you it's not a right, it's a privilege.

[3]: ...And? If someone breaks into your home by ramming an armored car into it, then a rocket launcher would be of great help. That doesn't mean that we should legalize rocket launchers, much less that we should put fewer restrictions on them than we put on marijuana.

Actually that is a reason as to why we might want to lower restrictions on them, but we should have far fewer restrictions on cannabis in the first place.

[4]: I admit that I've never had the misfortune of encountering someone who's high enough to ignore bullets (although I've also never shot someone, so I guess I wouldn't know), but if a higher caliber is all that's needed, then why not encourage the use of higher caliber weaponry in places where drugs like PCP are a serious problem?

Not a bad idea, the AR-10 is chamber in .308.

Tl;dr I have nothing against the Second Amendment as (I think) it was intended, but I'm confused by the logic that adding more guns will make it easier for people to kill their attackers, but it apparently won't make it easier for their attackers to kill them. If making guns even easier to get than they already are could solve the problem of gun violence by itself, then you'd think that they would have solved it already - we've had more guns than people for a long time, yet somehow the problem is worse here than it is elsewhere.

Not so much that by carrying a gun I'm automatically immune to bullets, but that I'm more more able to respond to an armed attack if I'm armed, than when I'm not. Therefore it becomes more difficult for someone to kill me, if I'm armed than if I'm not, by the very nature that I can fight back. This fits into strong target philosophy. The average criminal doesn't really want to commit violence, they just want my money/stuff. And generally they're not keen on risking their lives for it. So they're going to look for soft targets, that won't put up much resistance. Thus, a proliferation of legal weapon ownership, decreases the likelihood that they will find soft targets, and more likely that they'll find hard targets, that will resist, making them less successful and less likely to engage someone. This works for common violent crime.

Gun violence in the US however, is mostly gang related. Banning guns won't stop gang violence, as they have the motive to commit violence, and the means to acquire illegal weapons. All a ban does is disarm the law abiding populace. So not only is not very effectual (as we see in cities with strict gun laws, and high gang violence), and an abridgment of rights on the law abiding populace, but it "potentially" creates more victims by making more soft targets.

That's the rationale anyway, i'm not true believer as it were, but I do generally sympathize with it.

[Ifreann]

But you really do. You need to know the difference between a clip, a magazine, and a belt. You need to know the difference between an automatic, semi-outmatic, pump action, bolt action, muzzle loader, breach loader(well this mainly applies to artillery and double barrel shotguns) etc. Because these are all different things that have different qualities as they apply to the gun debate. So you/everyone needs to be informed on the matter.

It's no more necessary to have specific knowledge about firearms terminology than it is to have specific knowledge about the terminology of road engineering, or climate science, or child psychology, or corporate tax law, or nutrition, or a million other things.

[Libertas Omnium Maximus]

Yes. I would just debunk them. You can argue against this too, I haven't submitted it as evidence. It is just a supplement to my argument.

Huh, you genuinely don't see the problems with using biased sources. Interesting.
Anyway, do you have any substantial proof that social democracy will harm the USA when it has shown to be beneficial to most developed countries that have tried it?

I am not using it as a piece of factual evidence. It isn't a source. It is an opinion that I am adding to the conversation. I want it to be biased. It is inherently biased. You are confusing opinion with fact. This is opinion.

[Telconi]

We have neither a perfectly regulated or or free housing market. The combination is what is killing is, same as with healthcare.

I found an article that sums up the problems with liberal socialism or whatever you are calling it these days. https://nypost.com/2018/08/05/sorry-dem ... oison/amp/

Any article with the title "sorry democratic socialists you're still pushing poison" is something so obviously biased that I'm not even going to bother reading it. If you're not going to even attempt to find sources that try to examine the situation apolitically, then I'm either not going to dignify your posts with a response or cite obvious Marxist propaganda, can't decide which I would enjoy more.

How does one apolytically examine political positions?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Huh, you genuinely don't see the problems with using biased sources. Interesting.
Anyway, do you have any substantial proof that social democracy will harm the USA when it has shown to be beneficial to most developed countries that have tried it?

I am not using it as a piece of factual evidence. It isn't a source. It is an opinion that I am adding to the conversation. I want it to be biased. It is inherently biased. You are confusing opinion with fact. This is opinion.

Get your own opinion, don't steal someone else's. Or failing that, don't expect me to take you seriously if you're only going to parrot back the exact same lines I've heard ten zillion times already from people like you in debates like this. I wasn't impressed then, and I'm definitely not now.

Any article with the title "sorry democratic socialists you're still pushing poison" is something so obviously biased that I'm not even going to bother reading it. If you're not going to even attempt to find sources that try to examine the situation apolitically, then I'm either not going to dignify your posts with a response or cite obvious Marxist propaganda, can't decide which I would enjoy more.

How does one apolytically examine political positions?

By examining the effects they have had when they are put in place using data for things like GDP per capita, HDI, happiness, freedom, et cetera. Deciding the merits of an ideology based on how much you like it is putting the cart before the horse, you should instead decide how much you like an ideology based on its merits.