US Politics Megathread

[spanky4ever]

What do you think of them apples @fightinfrenchman

[spanky4ever]

The ppl killed by guns are 10 times higher in USA, than Europa.
Hypothesis:
1. You, the American ppl are so aggressive! You live and breath violence, hate, and angst.
2. There are access way to guns AND automatic rifles, that kill ppl more efficiently than a knife, or stump violence
3. The model theory, you had so many examples of violence and school shooting, so it makes it a target for young ppl to go crazy on.
4. You have a gun lobby that buy politicians, and bend them your way.

Hardly anyone in Europa are afraid to go to school for the reasons YOU are. We have guns in Eu as well, but they have a purpose, for going hunting, or being in a pistol club etc. Hardly anyone can get their hands on an assault weapon here ) except in extreme instances.

We watch this, over and over again, and Presidents have come and gone, and NOBODY can say much more than "help and prayer".

[spanky4ever]

You choose whatever theory, or all of them - are valid. But what do you do?

As it has turned out, nothing! All talk - and no actions

[spanky4ever]

I hope the good ppl of Texas will vote down Cruiz - the person who have received the most donations from RNA

[fightinfrenchman]

You choose whatever theory, or all of them - are valid. But what do you do?

As it has turned out, nothing! All talk - and no actions

What do you want me to do

[Goodspeed]

What do you think of them apples @fightinfrenchman

What apples? I skimmed through the video and he seems to be talking about a lot of different shit

[princeofcarthage]

You choose whatever theory, or all of them - are valid. But what do you do?

As it has turned out, nothing! All talk - and no actions

What do you want me to do

vote for trump and watch all the problems go away

[Dolan]

Not much will change until someone manages to go on a shooting spree in the congress.
And maybe not even then

[callentournies]

A shooting spree in Congress was not not attempted

[fightinfrenchman]

What do you think of them apples @fightinfrenchman

What apples? I skimmed through the video and he seems to be talking about a lot of different shit

I particularly like Opal apples tbh

[iNcog]

What are thoughts about AOC anyway? I'm not sure what to make of her as of right now.

[Dolan]

She wants P

[Goodspeed]

What are thoughts about AOC anyway? I'm not sure what to make of her as of right now.

How come?

AOC and co. represent an important shift in the democratic party that is unlikely to slow down anytime soon.

She won her seat with very low turnout so idk if she's necessarily representing her district but her following nationally is quite telling. As a politician I think she's talented and probably has a bright future in the party.

[iNcog]

What are thoughts about AOC anyway? I'm not sure what to make of her as of right now.

How come?

AOC and co. represent an important shift in the democratic party that is unlikely to slow down anytime soon.

She won her seat with very low turnout so idk if she's necessarily representing her district but her following nationally is quite telling. As a politician I think she's talented and probably has a bright future in the party.

I just didn't know much about her at all. A scan of her Wikipedia page and it seems she supports everything that I would support. She seems quite good, but that is surface level analysis and I wasn't sure if there things about her I didn't know that would change my opinion. Her policies are progressive and i like her stance on many things.

[Dolan]

That's because her message is calculated "millennial electoral bait"

[Goodspeed]

She's a politician lol what do you expect, for messages to not be calculated?

[Dolan]

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.
Or cutting the army's budget and using the money to cancel student debt in the USA. Etc.

[fightinfrenchman]

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.

Why do you think most of her voters are in their 20s?

[callentournies]

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.
Or cutting the army's budget and using the money to cancel student debt in the USA. Etc.

What isn't good about those things

[Dolan]

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.

Why do you think most of her voters are in their 20s?

Maybe I phrased that badly. Her popularity comes from the millennial audience, which is probably in the range of 23 to 38.
Her voters are probably more mixed and there might be some Latino component in what propelled her into the congress seat. I haven't looked into the demographics of her constituency.
It is a fact, tho, that she's very popular among this crowd of 20-something 30-something US Democratic voters (that also identify with the leftmost wing of the Democratic party, aka the democratic socialism Bernie crowd), who are animated by the typical millennial political themes: housing, free education, free healthcare, taxes for the rich etc.

[Dolan]

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.
Or cutting the army's budget and using the money to cancel student debt in the USA. Etc.

What isn't good about those things

There's a trade-off in any policy but this kind of politicians don't spend much time either checking the impact of what they propose in detail or explaining that to their voters.

Like, let's say that the US adopted all those things that are very popular among millennials in the USA: free healthcare, free education. And the result in 15 or 20 years would be that 'Scandinavian ideal' that Bernie and AOC have been advertising in the USA: free healthcare, free education but half the wages that Americans have now. Would that be a good trade-off? Would US politicians be willing to explain that? No, they'd rather just sell the illusion of it.

[callentournies]

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.
Or cutting the army's budget and using the money to cancel student debt in the USA. Etc.

What isn't good about those things

There's a trade-off in any policy but this kind of politicians don't spend much time either checking the impact of what they propose in detail or explaining that to their voters.

Like, let's say that the US adopted all those things that are very popular among millennials in the USA: free healthcare, free education. And the result in 15 or 20 years would be that 'Scandinavian ideal' that Bernie and AOC have been advertising in the USA: free healthcare, free education but half the wages that Americans have now. Would that be a good trade-off? Would US politicians be willing to explain that? No, they'd rather just sell the illusion of it.

what isn't good about higher taxes for rich and cutting army budget

[Dolan]

Show hidden quotes

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.
Or cutting the army's budget and using the money to cancel student debt in the USA. Etc.

What isn't good about those things

There's a trade-off in any policy but this kind of politicians don't spend much time either checking the impact of what they propose in detail or explaining that to their voters.

Like, let's say that the US adopted all those things that are very popular among millennials in the USA: free healthcare, free education. And the result in 15 or 20 years would be that 'Scandinavian ideal' that Bernie and AOC have been advertising in the USA: free healthcare, free education but half the wages that Americans have now. Would that be a good trade-off? Would US politicians be willing to explain that? No, they'd rather just sell the illusion of it.

what isn't good about higher taxes for rich and cutting army budget

It depends. Obama did raise taxes during his time, did this solve anything about those objectives that usually AOC talks about? It depends on how much taxes would be raised, how the money would be used, how would the business sector react or adapt to this, etc.
If the US army lost funds and this emboldened China to invade Taiwan and Russia to invade more countries, would this be a good outcome

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.
Or cutting the army's budget and using the money to cancel student debt in the USA. Etc.

What isn't good about those things

There's a trade-off in any policy but this kind of politicians don't spend much time either checking the impact of what they propose in detail or explaining that to their voters.

Like, let's say that the US adopted all those things that are very popular among millennials in the USA: free healthcare, free education. And the result in 15 or 20 years would be that 'Scandinavian ideal' that Bernie and AOC have been advertising in the USA: free healthcare, free education but half the wages that Americans have now. Would that be a good trade-off? Would US politicians be willing to explain that? No, they'd rather just sell the illusion of it.

what isn't good about higher taxes for rich and cutting army budget

It depends. Obama did raise taxes during his time, did this solve anything about those objectives that usually AOC talks about? It depends on how much taxes would be raised, how the money would be used, how would the business sector react or adapt to this, etc.
If the US army lost funds and this emboldened China to invade Taiwan and Russia to invade more countries, would this be a good outcome

What a pointless post. Of course it depends on the money gets spent lol

[princeofcarthage]

Show hidden quotes

No, I mean she's selling illusions and impractical ideas, because her public typically believes or wants to believe that sort of stories.
Obviously if your voters are mostly people in their 20s, they will believe that the only thing that stands between their current problems and happines is increasing taxes for the rich.
Or cutting the army's budget and using the money to cancel student debt in the USA. Etc.

What isn't good about those things

There's a trade-off in any policy but this kind of politicians don't spend much time either checking the impact of what they propose in detail or explaining that to their voters.

Like, let's say that the US adopted all those things that are very popular among millennials in the USA: free healthcare, free education. And the result in 15 or 20 years would be that 'Scandinavian ideal' that Bernie and AOC have been advertising in the USA: free healthcare, free education but half the wages that Americans have now. Would that be a good trade-off? Would US politicians be willing to explain that? No, they'd rather just sell the illusion of it.

what isn't good about higher taxes for rich and cutting army budget

It depends. Obama did raise taxes during his time, did this solve anything about those objectives that usually AOC talks about? It depends on how much taxes would be raised, how the money would be used, how would the business sector react or adapt to this, etc.
If the US army lost funds and this emboldened China to invade Taiwan and Russia to invade more countries, would this be a good outcome

Well US army is one of the most inefficient institutions in the world. There is significant corruption everywhere. You could see some of the AOC grilling of the arms companies. These companies often charged excess of $200 for half a penny object under name of innovation. Such things balloons the cost. A more efficient and less corrupt system could definitely save billions which could be used elsewhere.