US Election 2016

[MishkaL1138]

Wow, guys, you sure know how to derail an argument quickly. But even though we all know how scary is Trump, we're all failing to see the whole picture.

On one corner, we have a "self made" billionaire. A guy that started with one million and ended up with two thousand (aka, two billion) or more, of whom has been said that "if he had invested it intelligently and dedicated his career to finger painting, his net worth would be eight billion dollars." This guy, this amazing guy, has been the target of many mockings and the victim of failed products, all branded with his name in diamonds (Trump steaks? Trump vodka? No? Anyone?). And while he might realize he's not smart enough to rule a country on his own, he's smart enough to surround himself with capable people... who am I kidding. He's putting his friends in charge, and they're just like him, or worse - like Mike "Shock The Gay Away" Pence.

On the other side, however, we have something that might even be less appealing... We have a former Secretary of State that seemed to care little about the finesse of exterior politics, and would rather exert brute force than talk it through. I guess that's why she got replaced with the second administration. A woman that's currently being investigated by the FBI while she's trying to punish the whistleblowers that did nothing but expose her lies and plots. Clinton's friends rigged everything they could and the mother to get her to win her the seat of the Democrat candidate, robbing Bernie (whom really had the popular vote, and not her) of a most deserved victory.

But Bernie... It makes me laugh. In some regards, the USA still lives in the dark ages of the 50's through the 80's, when the threat of comunism loomed over the "allies" and grew stronger in an otherwise failing macrostate. The americans seem to still live in that era, and anything that means social progress (which is what the US needs the most now - veterans whilting away in the streets, students working 2 full-time jobs to pay tuition, single mothers not eating so that their children can) is labeled as "dirty comunism" and "taking away muh freedumz." Bernie could've never really won. That would've made the US into Europe 2.0.

Now go sit in the corner and think about what you've done and why are the same guys sitting in the Congress for 30 years.

[LigH]

Populism. Try to understand the last argument for building a wall to Mexico: Trump promised it to save thousands of lives by naming people who were killed by immigrants. He may not have said it in such terms, but narrowing the focus in such a way produces an image as if every immigrant is a potential killer. I bet he wouldn't dare to name immigrants who have become tax paying citizen. Populists generalize minorities to universal threats, to present themselves as the only and easiest solution. And countering a flood of emotional blathering with the facts required to disprove them would just take too long, they don't grant their opponents enough time to react reasonably. It's also known as Gish Gallop.

This even belittles the promise of this wall saving billions of dollars. After costing possibly dozens of billions, especially when taking into account the ground along larger sections of the border which makes building walls very complicated. How the payment by Mexico will be enforced remains questionable. But at the same time, relations to Mexico will advance to a new level. As a computer scientist, I sense a "logical conflict".

[Volki]

I sincerely don't think socialism is the correct solution to help America's lower class. If you remain poor in America, you're not handling your money well. You're wasting it on weed, booze, clothing, games, an addiction, or whatever you fancy. That's assuming you're not struck with random illness, but that's not just a lower class issue. Spain is a lot different. The poor here tend to be poor because they repeatedly make terrible decisions.

[LigH]

That nicely sums up the position of the "neo-liberals": You are poor because you are too stupid to use your chances, not because we leave you hardly any chance to use.

Unable to handle your money well? ... Do you really consider it impossible that there is just not enough money left to handle for some? "Whatever you fancy" ... that can be nothing after you paid your rent, your taxes, and the cheapest food you can afford. Nothing left to even go out and have a drink. Despite having two precarious jobs a day.

[MishkaL1138]

I sincerely don't think socialism is the correct solution to help America's lower class. If you remain poor in America, you're not handling your money well. You're wasting it on weed, booze, clothing, games, an addiction, or whatever you fancy. That's assuming you're not struck with random illness, but that's not just a lower class issue. Spain is a lot different. The poor here tend to be poor because they repeatedly make terrible decisions.

The poor people in Spain are poor because they make bad decisions, mostly. Even if there are some just people that get screwed over by the banks and such, the vast majority of poor people are just poor because they waste it. Don't forget it, poor people are the same everywhere. We're not a country of hobos and sloths.

[Rigwyn]

Populism. Try to understand the last argument for building a wall to Mexico: Trump promised it to save thousands of lives by naming people who were killed by immigrants. He may not have said it in such terms, but narrowing the focus in such a way produces an image as if every immigrant is a potential killer. I bet he wouldn't dare to name immigrants who have become tax paying citizen. Populists generalize minorities to universal threats, to present themselves as the only and easiest solution. And countering a flood of emotional blathering with the facts required to disprove them would just take too long, they don't grant their opponents enough time to react reasonably. It's also known as Gish Gallop.

Populists appeal to the poor and working class. It's not necessarily a bad thing. If we're talking about someone who pretends to be a populist in order to get votes, that's a different thing. I can give you examples of that. Obama claimed to be a populist and both him and Sanders would probably label themselves as populists. I believe Obama would argue that Trump is more of a wolf in sheep's clothing - someone who pretends to be a populist just to get their votes.

In this regard, Trump is kind of in between. He's taking a very Republican stance in asserting that businesses needs to be cared for. Without them, there are no jobs. At the same time he's against the current  ( well, previous now ) establishment. The Democrats traditionally support the people and communities instead of the businesses, but it's not that simple.

This even belittles the promise of this wall saving billions of dollars. After costing possibly dozens of billions, especially when taking into account the ground along larger sections of the border which makes building walls very complicated. How the payment by Mexico will be enforced remains questionable. But at the same time, relations to Mexico will advance to a new level. As a computer scientist, I sense a "logical conflict".

Just as the Eurozone needs it's walls and border protection, we do too. You guys know what happens when you just let swarms of people into your country unchecked. We have the same problem with Mexico. Without passing judgment on the individuals, the problem is with controlling who gets in and ensuring that those who work here pay their dues and obey our laws. As for paying for the wall, it will probably be in the form of tax on money and goods crossing the border.

As someone who is from Europe, do you really think that putting up a wall to protect your border makes you a racist or a xenophobe? We have a lot of people here ( mostly democrats ) who are saying this without really thinking about it critically.

I sincerely don't think socialism is the correct solution to help America's lower class. If you remain poor in America, you're not handling your money well. You're wasting it on weed, booze, clothing, games, an addiction, or whatever you fancy. That's assuming you're not struck with random illness, but that's not just a lower class issue. Spain is a lot different. The poor here tend to be poor because they repeatedly make terrible decisions.

We have people here who try to make a lifestyle out of living off of Welfare ( public assistance ). They would rather not work and collect a handout and live in crappy conditions than to do some work and earn their way. Some of them end ho spawning lots of kids in order to get more money from the government. Yes, like over there, there are many reasons for not doing well financially.

[Volki]

You are poor because you are too stupid to use your chances, not because we leave you hardly any chance to use.

What's "we?" The government? Do you expect the government to provide you happiness?

Do you really consider it impossible that there is just not enough money left to handle for some?

I know poor people who live more lavishly than I do. They buy more than I do, go out more than I do, abuse substances more than I do, fight more than I do, unnecessarily break the law more than I do. That's the majority of poor I have met. Those I have known who started out poor and did not do any of those things did not stay poor for long.

I once had more sympathy for the poor until I immersed myself in their culture. And once upon a time, my family was poorer than theirs, yet mine managed to rise up through wise decision-making.

That's just what I've witnessed, though. There's plenty of statistics to back up my claim.

[LigH]

As usual ... don't generalize. There may be some people who are poor because they buy unnecessary things, but that doesn't mean that every poor person wastes their money; many are just unable to improve their situation without help (e.g. finding a better paid job despite their age or lack of higher education, not to mention the investments to move to another home). Also there may be criminals among migrants, but that doesn't mean that every migrant is criminal; many just even survived and would possibly be already dead if they didn't escape.

And "we" is not just the government. It means the whole society. Compared to many other countries, the society of the USA is quite "asocial", in the meaning that it cares less about those who need help to handle their lives. The free economy market  and liberal politics, guiding the media as well, conditioned the people to believe in selfishness, everyone being responsible for their own fate, but less for the wealth of the whole society. Capitalism, fuck yeah.

The fact that Americans on the average fear only few things more than Communism and Socialism is a proof in itself that most people do not even understand these concepts. – "Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people." – Propaganda of the upper class makes the middle class believe that they would suffer if everyone cared a bit more about everyone, according to each ability to do so.

Do you know the difference between the average income and the median income? Do you earn more than the median? 50% of of your population does not. And how far apart are median and average in your country? The further apart, the less equal the income is spread across the population, because top wages have more impact on the average income, but are available to only few people. Can you imagine how many teachers, paramedics, or elderly nurses you could pay with a managerial salary or top athlete transfer? These are benchmarks for "asocial societies".

And you can see all over Europe how people increasingly feel their societies becoming more asocial by their economy markets getting more "free" and similar to the American Way. More and more people feel left out by the politics of the governments they once voted for, leaving only choices between not voting anymore at all, or voting for populists. As if there is no party to vote for which claims to make the society more social ... oh, wait, there are some. But people are afraid that social politics would make them poorer, not realizing that they are already poor enough to profit from more social politics instead, shrouded by the horrors of neoliberal and populistic propaganda.

[Rigwyn]

For a while Ligh, I was more on the Liberal/Democrat side. I've recently changed my mind about this, so I might have agreed with you on more of this a year or two ago.

As usual ... don't generalize.

I'll remember that.

There may be some people who are poor because they buy unnecessary things, but that doesn't mean that every poor person wastes their money; many are just unable to improve their situation without help (e.g. finding a better paid job despite their age or lack of higher education, not to mention the investments to move to another home). Also there may be criminals among migrants, but that doesn't mean that every migrant is criminal; many just even survived and would possibly be already dead if they didn't escape.

I agree, however with immigration, it's a mixture problem. If 5% of the refugees or immigrants from one country wants to abolish your country, then how many of those people should you let into your country? 1,000? 5,000 ? 50,000? How about half a million?  We argue that 95% of these people are probably honest, decent folks, but that doesn't mean we should over look the 5% who wants to destroy our culture and replace it with Sharia law. I'm not saying don't let any of them in, just that you need to take the minority of troublemakers in the population seriously. If culturally, these people don't see anything wrong with raping women in the streets for fun or because they think they look like whores, then that should be taken into consideration too.

And "we" is not just the government. It means the whole society. Compared to many other countries, the society of the USA is quite "asocial", in the meaning that it cares less about those who need help to handle their lives. The free economy market  and liberal politics, guiding the media as well, conditioned the people to believe in selfishness, everyone being responsible for their own fate, but less for the wealth of the whole society. Capitalism, fuck yeah.

Let's refer back to the earlier comment about not generalizing   

In the US, we have population that's pretty evenly split down the middle. Half the country is Republican, half is Democrats. The Republicans tend to believe in the free markets - or letting supply and demand drive prices, profits and production. The have traditionally been Christian and tend to align with Christian teachings and morality. They also believe in supporting businesses so that we have jobs and money to work with. The Democrats traditionally tended to be more on the liberal side - less religous, LGBT supporters, etc. They believe in giving money to charities and supporting the people directly while letting businesses fend for themselves. They seem to believe that if we give more money to social causes - ie. public schools, public health services, and monetary support for every afflicted group imagninable, then society will be better off.

Some folks here are cold and ruthless while some are charitable and selfless.

The fact that Americans

Dammit... what happened to my cookie cutter... the one we use to make new Muricans with so they all look the same ... >.>

on the average fear only few things more than Communism and Socialism is a proof in itself that most people do not even understand these concepts. – "Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people." – Propaganda of the upper class makes the middle class believe that they would suffer if everyone cared a bit more about everyone, according to each ability to do so.

I heard Angela Merkel let a wave of Syrian Refugees into Germany. How's that been working out for you guys? 
More important, do the Italians, British, French and Spanish have similar opinions on this?

Do you know of any countries where Communism and Socialism is actually working?
Would you want to live in said countries?
Denmark may be the exception here, but I understand they don't have pure socialism, but rather a mixture or socialism and capitalism and a culture that works well with this.

Do you know the difference between the average income and the median income? Do you earn more than the median? 50% of of your population does not. And how far apart are median and average in your country? The further apart, the less equal the income is spread across the population, because top wages have more impact on the average income, but are available to only few people. Can you imagine how many teachers, paramedics, or elderly nurses you could pay with a managerial salary or top athlete transfer? These are benchmarks for "asocial societies".

In the US, Democrats would probably agree with your statement. I however, take the Republican's side on this matter.
1. People who work longer, harder or smarter and earn more deserve to keep what they worked for.
2. Nobody should be forced to hand over their hard earned money or goods. (That's called theft )
3. We pay taxes to support our country.
4. Those who are helpless and thus truly in need should be taken care of.
4. You can't force someone to do something they don't want to do. ( the exception would be in complying with the laws )

Therefore, if you work your ass off and earn twice as much money as me, then I have no right to demand you to give me some of your money in order to make our wallets "EQUAL". In this case, inequality is fair. Equality in this example, would be a violation of your right to work hard and get ahead. It would also discourage you from working harder and encourage me to be lazy.

And you can see all over Europe how people increasingly feel their societies becoming more asocial by their economy markets getting more "free" and similar to the American Way. More and more people feel left out by the politics of the governments they once voted for,

BREXIT

leaving only choices between not voting anymore at all, or voting for populists.

Again, populists are politicians who are for the people - ie Democrats.

As if there is no party to vote for which claims to make the society more social ... oh, wait, there are some. But people are afraid that social politics would make them poorer, not realizing that they are already poor enough to profit from more social politics instead, shrouded by the horrors of neoliberal and populistic propaganda.

I don't think socialism worked out too well in Russia, and as for communism, I don't think I would ever want to live in China, North Korea or Cuba. Can you think of a communist or socialist country where you would want to live? I can't.

[Mairon]

Eastern European here.
Guys, please don`t idealize socialism/communism. Just don`t do it.
The people here know perfectly it leads only to living hell with "1984" taken as an instruction manual.

[LigH]

We may have a different opinion about the meaning of the term "populist". My interpretation is closer to "politicians who tell the people what they want to hear at first before derailing the topic". Populists, as I know them, offer simple solutions to difficult problems, present themselves as the messiah in times of despair. But their solutions are often based on fear, hate, separation, promising security after declaring terror (which means originally: fear of violence). The result of raising security is a loss of privacy, freedom, democracy. The same politicians are about to establish terms and habits of Nazi times in Germany again.

Regarding any established socialistic or even communistic society ... no, I don't know of any flawless example. Some central and south american countries implemented parts of it. But after all, corruption and dictationship is present as well. Therefore I only referred to their concepts, in theory. And I keep returning to the "social economy market" as proposed by Ludwig Erhard, over and over again. In relation to the french term "noblesse obligue", there is also an important concept in the german constitutional law (§14.2): "Eigentum verpflichtet" (property obliges). Private property shall not be used to harm the common wealth. In other words: "If you have more than enough, build a longer table, not a higher fence." The Christs amoung our readers may know the 10 Commandments better than me, at least by their words; whether they live by their meaning, is a different topic.

One of the most important reasons for crime is poverty. Less people would be forced to steal if they didn't hunger. Of course, there are more reasons for crimes, like lack of education (also often based on poverty), mental issues (born psychopaths do exist as well); even boredom (how many rich people committed crimes for the thrill). I find the lack of sustainability in the modern free market economy ... somehow "fascinating", just as Spock would have used this term. Hardly any kind of (craft/trade/artisanry?) would deplete its resources as ruthless as the "market" does it today: The solvent customer. The more people get insolvent, the less people can buy your products. Am I the only one who realizes how stupid a spreading gap between upper and lower society classes is? Yet, the gap keeps spreading more and more. Thanks to conservative and neoliberal politics, guided by lobbyism. Greed will ruin the nations.

One closing point regarding the republican view: Those who "work their ass off" often just earn much less than those who are hardly relevant for the gross national product. And I doubt that republican politicians are the first to change this injustice. German politicians legitimate the amount of their daily allowances by lowering the risk of bribery; but bribery with cash is obsolete, the real bribery happens with promised manager positions after their political carreer, in their lobbyist's companies (a.k.a. "revolving door effect").

[Dilihin]

Eastern European here.
Guys, please don`t idealize socialism/communism. Just don`t do it.
The people here know perfectly it leads only to living hell with "1984" taken as an instruction manual.

I don't usually comment on this because i don't care enough but what you are basically saying is that you shouldn't like socialism/communism just because you "shouldn't"?    If you say something that radical you should be able to prove it, i want to hear your reasoning.

[LigH]

The meaning is rather: Don't believe that there has been real socialism or even communism in eastern Europe after 1945. It was announced as such, but in fact something different. State-directed economy, combined with a pseudo-democratic form of dictatorship, mistrust, surveillance, denouncing. Certainly no philantropy, though.

[Dilihin]

The meaning is rather: Don't believe that there has been real socialism or even communism in eastern Europe after 1945. It was announced as such, but in fact something different. State-directed economy, combined with a pseudo-democratic form of dictatorship, mistrust, surveillance, denouncing. Certainly no philantropy, though.

No, i don't , but the point is rather that since Mairon had a statement that he would back it up

[Mairon]

I`ll back it up by one word, Dilihin: USSR. (Google is your friend)
The point is that under socialism you won`t be sitting here on the forum writing posts and discussing things. You will be starving to death in a gulag, where there is certainly no internet.
The "care about people" thing is just a smokescreen. If you are old enough to start discussing such a topic, you should probably realise it too.