Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 176: The Trump White House is Sunk For Sure This Time

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

...uh, what's weird about those?

"prison reform" is oddly specific.

Considering the US has the highest incarceration rate of the modern world, it's an "oddly specific" issue that affects a shitload of people?
---

What's hopeful for me avout prison reform is enough middle class white people have started to get fucked by drug laws thanks to the oxy epidemic that something real might actually get done.

Its starting to become something I am hearing from the evangelical south.
---

Most of needed American reform can generally be summed up as 'stop privatizing essential functions of a civilized society'. The prison system, health system, and education system are all royally fucked because they're run for-profit, and the best way for those systems to turn a profit is by exploiting the people within them.

The best description of current America I've seen is 'rich third world country'.
---

Eddv posted...

What's hopeful for me avout prison reform is enough middle class white people have started to get fucked by drug laws thanks to the oxy epidemic that something real might actually get done.

Its starting to become something I am hearing from the evangelical south.

We just really need to make sure it gets done for not just white people. It's all well and good if this starts the conversation but if people aren't able to make it over that hurdle of "by the way, this affects minorities way worse" then we aren't actually going to get much done.

KamikazePotato posted...

Most of needed American reform can generally be summed up as 'stop privatizing essential functions of a civilized society'. The prison system, health system, and education system are all royally fucked because they're run for-profit, and the best way for those systems to turn a profit is by exploiting the people within them.

Oh there's a lot of reform in all of these areas that needs to happen in the public sector too

Personally, I want higher taxes across the board, particularly on the wealthy and corporations. Taxes shouldn't be treated like ice cream Fridays during a middle school class president debate. Obviously no one wants to give up their hard-earned money, but that's how the government fucking runs, and I'm perfectly fine with unnecessarily ballooning our military budget so long as Republicans decide to grow a pair and tell the American people the hard truth, that they need to pay higher taxes to fund it, rather than slashing social programs that would do little to bridge the gap anyway. That's why I like and respect George H.W. Bush, because even though it wasn't popular (made him a one-term president), he knew that we needed to raise taxes as part of sound fiscal policy.
---

Oh and it also doesn't help that we have one of the highest wealth gaps of any 1st-world country, if not the highest
---

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

generally, get rid of taxes on poor people and put the burden on upper middle class people)

Wait wtf???

Ideally, I want low income people (<$50,000) to pay little to no tax. I want to raise taxes on people earning between say, $150,000 and $500,000. And tax cuts for the rich because that's the foundation of any Republican plan.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

generally, get rid of taxes on poor people and put the burden on upper middle class people)

Wait wtf???

Ideally, I want low income people (<$50,000) to pay little to no tax. I want to raise taxes on people earning between say, $150,000 and $500,000. And tax cuts for the rich because that's the foundation of any Republican plan.

Wait wtf???
---

Redsox wtf?
---

man do you guys not read my conversations with red sox

because if you did you'd know that was the answer he'd give
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

That sounds like something someone who does not understand how bad our prison system is would say.

sure, fair point.

nobody really talks about prisons here (presumably because they're a lot better) so i guess i was looking at it from my country's perspective.
---

I mean, isn't what I said very similar to what Trump proposed before the election? He gave a ton of press to tax cuts for blue collar workers, and rich people. Not much attention to the upper middle class. Meanwhile, Obama said that if you made less than $250,000 your taxes would not go up and Hillary basically endorsed all of Obama's positions.
---

Private prisons make more money the more prisoners they have

Consider the end results of that fact
---

Corrik posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

...uh, what's weird about those?

"prison reform" is oddly specific.

and personally i would never put "social justice issues" that high, and i care a ton about those kinds of issues.

To further this along, after the environment it is like he mostly just cares about illegal immigrants minorities in prison. Lol. Obviously a bit of hyperbole, but...

I mean, those are the people that are most mistreated by our society, so I care about helping them the most.

Theyre just behind the environment because that literally affects every person on Earth and HOLY CRAP weve done so much damage to our planet and its making life on Earth so much worse.

And yes, criminal justice reform is probably more accurate. Thanks people.
---

Like, of all the conservative brainwashing, the fact that theyve gotten half the country to believe that the entire scientific community is willfully lying about how bad things are climate-wise is right near the top.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Like, of all the conservative brainwashing, the fact that theyve gotten half the country to believe that the entire scientific community is willfully lying about how bad things are climate-wise is right near the top.

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?
---

I've seen nothing to show that mainstream Democrats care at all about criminal justice reform. You'll recall California speaeheaded the ridiculously dumb 3 strikes law and Hillary said "super predators" needed to be "brought to heel." In 2016, California voters passed a law that death penalty appeals be heard by the same judge that passed the original sentence.

If they care but are too scared of being branded as soft on crime to do anything about it, that doesn't produce any better results.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Like, of all the conservative brainwashing, the fact that theyve gotten half the country to believe that the entire scientific community is willfully lying about how bad things are climate-wise is right near the top.

That's going by the wayside.

A recent gallup poll says 75% of 18-34 year olds think global warming is caused by human activities, 62% among 35-54, and 55% from 55-up.

Even old people are getting on board with the idea.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I've seen nothing to show that mainstream Democrats care at all about criminal justice reform. You'll recall California speaeheaded the ridiculously dumb 3 strikes law and Hillary said "super predators" needed to be "brought to heel." In 2016, California voters passed a law that death penalty appeals be heard by the same judge that passed the original sentence.

If they care but are too scared of being branded as soft on crime to do anything about it, that doesn't produce any better results.

I know. Its just a big issue to me. Its the most broken systemic thing in America
---

red sox 777 posted...

I've seen nothing to show that mainstream Democrats care at all about criminal justice reform. You'll recall California speaeheaded the ridiculously dumb 3 strikes law and Hillary said "super predators" needed to be "brought to heel." In 2016, California voters passed a law that death penalty appeals be heard by the same judge that passed the original sentence.

If they care but are too scared of being branded as soft on crime to do anything about it, that doesn't produce any better results.

Are you seriously quoting Hillary Clinton from like, over twenty years ago as an example of current Democrats not caring about criminal justice reform?
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.
---

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I've seen nothing to show that mainstream Democrats care at all about criminal justice reform. You'll recall California speaeheaded the ridiculously dumb 3 strikes law and Hillary said "super predators" needed to be "brought to heel." In 2016, California voters passed a law that death penalty appeals be heard by the same judge that passed the original sentence.

If they care but are too scared of being branded as soft on crime to do anything about it, that doesn't produce any better results.

Are you seriously quoting Hillary Clinton from like, over twenty years ago as an example of current Democrats not caring about criminal justice reform?

Are you seriously thinking red sox doesn't rival Ulti/Corrik/etc on the intellectual dishonesty scale?
---

Like, we dont have to be worlds number one in industry if it means irreparable planetary damage. Theres no pride in a pyhrric victory like that.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

No, he's saying we sacrifice our economy and stability for OUR country.
---

It's difficult to rank because the race to the bottom is so darn fluid, but I think that ulti/seph are tied for worst offender, then there's red sox and vlado, then finally corrik. Mwc believes everything he says.
---

What is this fantasy world where America would start caring about Global Warming and the rest of the world wouldn't?

We're the bottom of the food chain on this one, bud.
---

Nothing has changed in 20 years. The language of "brought to heel" actually explains a lot, because it suggests that the goal is not justice - but obedience. And this is seen daily in courthouses across the country where poor defendants who can't afford bail are offered a choice - plead guilty and go home today with a crime on your record, or plead not guilty and go back to jail to wait for your trial.

I mean Republicans might not be any better, but at least they won't be so afraid to be thought of as soft on crime. That R next to their name will shield them from that. So maybe there's some small chance.
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

No, he's saying we sacrifice our economy and stability for OUR country.

Pollution doesn't localize. Moving pollution from one area to another doesn't make global warming go away if it is caused by man-made production.
---

If you're trying to judge users by how conservative they are, I'll tell you. Ulti and MWC would be the first to actually vote for a Democrat. If they did, you would probably win the election. Next is me, then Corrik. If you get my vote you've almost certainly won the election, but you probably don't need it. Seph is the most conservative poster here.
---

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

No, he's saying we sacrifice our economy and stability for OUR country.

Pollution doesn't localize. Moving pollution from one area to another doesn't make global warming go away if it is caused by man-made production.

It makes it go away if we, as the number one leaders Republicans like to think we are, make a commitment to ending it. You're basically offering a hypothetical that doesn't exist in order to create a no-win scenario for people who believe in facts. The real question is: why should the rest of the world, who ARE working to combat climate change, sacrifice their economy and stability is the U.S. is so filled with self-centered assholes that we won't join everyone else is saving the human race?
---

Caveat: I actually voted for Bernie, but he's technically not a Democrat!
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

No, he's saying we sacrifice our economy and stability for OUR country.

Pollution doesn't localize. Moving pollution from one area to another doesn't make global warming go away if it is caused by man-made production.

It makes it go away if we, as the number one leaders Republicans like to think we are, make a commitment to ending it. You're basically offering a hypothetical that doesn't exist in order to create a no-win scenario for people who believe in facts. The real question is: why should the rest of the world, who ARE working to combat climate change, sacrifice their economy and stability is the U.S. is so filled with self-centered assholes that we won't join everyone else is saving the human race?

You are just relocating it. You did nothing to stop it.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If you're trying to judge users by how conservative they are, I'll tell you. Ulti and MWC would be the first to actually vote for a Democrat. If they did, you would probably win the election. Next is me, then Corrik. If you get my vote you've almost certainly won the election, but you probably don't need it. Seph is the most conservative poster here.

MWC is so far in the right spectrum it is insane.
---

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If you're trying to judge users by how conservative they are, I'll tell you. Ulti and MWC would be the first to actually vote for a Democrat. If they did, you would probably win the election. Next is me, then Corrik. If you get my vote you've almost certainly won the election, but you probably don't need it. Seph is the most conservative poster here.

MWC is so far in the right spectrum it is insane.

He used to be a registered Democrat and actually voted for some.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If you're trying to judge users by how conservative they are, I'll tell you. Ulti and MWC would be the first to actually vote for a Democrat. If they did, you would probably win the election. Next is me, then Corrik. If you get my vote you've almost certainly won the election, but you probably don't need it. Seph is the most conservative poster here.

Yeah that's not what we were talking about. Thank you for proving the point!
---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If you're trying to judge users by how conservative they are, I'll tell you. Ulti and MWC would be the first to actually vote for a Democrat. If they did, you would probably win the election. Next is me, then Corrik. If you get my vote you've almost certainly won the election, but you probably don't need it. Seph is the most conservative poster here.

MWC is so far in the right spectrum it is insane.

He used to be a registered Democrat and actually voted for some.

That means literally nothing even if true. Many people become conservative later in life.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

Well if its not going to matter then our position on the worlds stage doesnt really matter, does it?

Who cares who is captain of the post-iceberg Titanic?
---

red sox 777 posted...

If you're trying to judge users by how conservative they are, I'll tell you. Ulti and MWC would be the first to actually vote for a Democrat. If they did, you would probably win the election.

ulti was always rather leftist until trump started to become a popular candidate during the campaign. then all of a sudden he became all "TRUMP FUCK YEAH LEFTISTS ARE IDIOTS." this is actually a path a lot of leftists took at the time (for this board, extha and vlado are other examples). i could see him going back to the left when the whole trump thing is over and a boring standard conservative becomes the face of the republicans.
---

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If you're trying to judge users by how conservative they are, I'll tell you. Ulti and MWC would be the first to actually vote for a Democrat. If they did, you would probably win the election. Next is me, then Corrik. If you get my vote you've almost certainly won the election, but you probably don't need it. Seph is the most conservative poster here.

MWC is so far in the right spectrum it is insane.

He used to be a registered Democrat and actually voted for some.

That means literally nothing even if true. Many people become conservative later in life.

That's fair. Although I'm pretty sure MWC likes to take extreme positions, in general, so that his positions are super far right currently doesn't necessarily contradict my statement.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

Well if its not going to matter then our position on the worlds stage doesnt really matter, does it?

Who cares who is captain of the post-iceberg Titanic?

I am sure many people care about their families and their countries.

This again comes down to whether you would rather act morally superior and be conquered or thrive and be willing to skirt the line when you have to.
---

Once upon a time it was true - China was going to ignore any environmental agreement in the name of maximized production.

But they AND India signed onto the Paris Accords. The problem was on its way to being solved.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

Well if its not going to matter then our position on the worlds stage doesnt really matter, does it?

Who cares who is captain of the post-iceberg Titanic?

I am sure many people care about their families and their countries.

This again comes down to whether you would rather act morally superior and be conquered or thrive and be willing to skirt the line when you have to.

Be conquered? By whom??
---

Eddv posted...

Once upon a time it was true - China was going to ignore any environmental agreement in the name of maximized production.

But they AND India signed onto the Paris Accords. The problem was on its way to being solved.

The Paris Accords has no way to enforce anything. The main complaint about the Paris Accords, including from Trump I believe, is that while we would follow it, no country is bound to follow it. It served no purpose as countries could just sign it and ignore it.
---

A big advantage Republicans have is that Democrats really don't want to win back people like Ulti. They would rather try for affluent moderate Republicans they can respect. But those are not the most swingy swing voters. Republicans don't care who you are, as long as you live in a swing state and vote R.
---

Eddv posted...

Once upon a time it was true - China was going to ignore any environmental agreement in the name of maximized production.

But they AND India signed onto the Paris Accords. The problem was on its way to being solved.

And yeah this is kind of a pointless hypothetical since in no circumstance would we ever be the only country that cares
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

Well if its not going to matter then our position on the worlds stage doesnt really matter, does it?

Who cares who is captain of the post-iceberg Titanic?

I am sure many people care about their families and their countries.

This again comes down to whether you would rather act morally superior and be conquered or thrive and be willing to skirt the line when you have to.

Be conquered? By whom??

I'm guessing Lavos.
---

Corrik posted...

Eddv posted...

Once upon a time it was true - China was going to ignore any environmental agreement in the name of maximized production.

But they AND India signed onto the Paris Accords. The problem was on its way to being solved.

The Paris Accords has no way to enforce anything. The main complaint about the Paris Accords, including from Trump I believe, is that while we would follow it, no country is bound to follow it. It served no purpose as countries could just sign it and ignore it.

You shouldnt really need an incentive to enforce mutual survival.

Like theres no way to enforce Mutually Assured Destruction but that doesnt mean we go nuke people
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl, if global warming was 100% proven, and we were willing to sacrifice economic output to try and combat it but no other countries actually were willing to outside of words, what kind of action would you support our country taking in regards to it?

Given that its our literal existence as a species at stake, I would support every helpful regulation possible, and HIGHLY positively incentivize businesses to go green with tax breaks to offset expenses.

The money can come from the military.

This is a strange hypothetical though since many other nations are taking the threat more seriously than we are.

So you are saying you support sacrificing our economy and stability for other countries and potentially letting our country fall from it's position in order to do something that will not matter without everyone on board?

Well if its not going to matter then our position on the worlds stage doesnt really matter, does it?

Who cares who is captain of the post-iceberg Titanic?

I am sure many people care about their families and their countries.

This again comes down to whether you would rather act morally superior and be conquered or thrive and be willing to skirt the line when you have to.

Be conquered? By whom??

The hypothetical usually is in regards to if a population is willing to fight dirty do you resort to fighting dirty back for your survival or do you try to be morally superior and be conquered and subject to their mercy?

You can apply that hypothetical to tons of situations.

Would you rather take a supposed morally superior high ground and risk the economy, production, stabilitiy, etc of your country to limit your production while others do not or are you willing to do just as other countries do in order to continue thriving and staying in pay or ahead of the pack?

I am highly surprised in this hypothetical that based on the way you framed your responses on the environment that you didn't endorse military takeover or usage to enforce guidelines for all because IT IS OUR LITERAL ENVIRONMENT AND FUTURE NOTHING ELSE MATTERS WITHOUT IT.
---