World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[prfsnl_gmr]

she is the only one with nuanced well-developed positions on a variety of issues.

I dunno - I mean, she can spin her immigration views to be more liberal than Sanders, and more conservative than Trump. After trying to pander to the latino crowd more than Bernie, she was asked how her support of a wall on the border is any different than Trump's proposal of a wall on the border, her response: "He's talking about a very tall wall, right? A beautiful tall wall, the most beautiful tall wall, better than the Great Wall of China . . ." People laughed because it poked fun at Trump...but let's look at the answer - the answer is...there really isn't a difference. You supported a wall, you voted to fund a wall and increase patrols, and now today you pander and we need to get better at uniting families and stop putting up walls.

Hillary's position on immigration reform is very, very different from Donald Trump's position. IMO, at least, her position is realistic and recognizes the executive branch's role in formulating enforcement policies in a world with limited resources. Donald Trump's position, on the other hand, is full of platitudes (e.g., "Defend the Laws and Constitution of the United States!") and completely unrealistic proposals (e.g., "Make Mexico Pay for the Wall," "Triple the number of ICE agents," etc.). Moreover, some of them are a little scary (e.g., "End birthright citizenship").

I don't deny she's a politician through and through - I don't know that any of her positions are well-developed though. I think she's like most life-long politicians and can bend her views to suit the current environment.

I sometimes think that I may be the last person on earth who thinks that people, and especially politicians, should be flexible in their views, willing to consider new information, and willing to reconsider their previous positions. IMO, those are desirable qualities, and I think that politicians should be less beholden to an ideology than to the will of the electorate.

As Bernie accurately points out - you must be saying something behind those closed doors - no one I am vehemently opposed to pays me $225K to come be hostile to them.

I am a pretty liberal guy...and I think that Bernie has been great for this campaign season...but I think that his disdain for the U.S. finance industry is a bit much. Likewise, I do not think that someone should be labeled a pariah simply because she charged her standard speaking fee to a Wall Street firm. (She charged the same amount to speak at Cisco, eBay, SalesForce, and the University of Buffalo, but people have been strangely silent about all of the favors she is going to do for them once she attains the oval office... )

.....

Finally, I want to mention that I enjoy this forum a lot because I can speak to people who do not share my political views in a civil, respectful, and thoughtful manner. I hope that this level of civility and maturity lasts through what will surely be a contentious election cycle.

[Blu]

As Bernie accurately points out - you must be saying something behind those closed doors - no one I am vehemently opposed to pays me $225K to come be hostile to them.

I am a pretty liberal guy...and I think that Bernie has been great for this campaign season...but I think that his disdain for the U.S. finance industry is a bit much. Likewise, I do not think that someone should be labeled a pariah simply because she charged her standard speaking fee to a Wall Street firm. (She charged the same amount to speak at Cisco, eBay, SalesForce, and the University of Buffalo, but people have been strangely silent about all of the favors she is going to do for them once she attains the oval office... )

.....

Finally, I want to mention that I enjoy this forum a lot because I can speak to people who do not share my political views in a civil, respectful, and thoughtful manner. I hope that this level of civility and maturity lasts through what will surely be a contentious election cycle.

I disagree here, based on the premises of the velocity of money, and how much the top earners spending a much smaller percentage of what they earn and the bottom earners spending almost all or close to all of what they earn. There's some merit to the argument that Asher Edelman is raising right now in favor of Bernie Sanders.

[Sarge]

I think almost everything Trump says can be interpreted through the lens of his "Art of the Deal" book. Ridiculous opening gambits all around, then cut deals.

I'm very conservative, so y'all can probably already figure out who I'm leaning towards. And no, it's not Trump! I may have mentioned this already here, but Trump's weird because he changes positions on a dime, and more often tilts more left than right, but it's not because he's a staunch ideologue. I don't think he's a committed conservative or progressive, which opens him up to influence either way.

Sanders, Clinton, and Cruz, on the other hand, are committed ideologues. Sanders and Cruz don't try to hide it, and Clinton tries to. I disagree with Bernie on almost everything, but I've got more respect for him being forthright about his beliefs than I do Hillary.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I disagree here, based on the premises of the velocity of money, and how much the top earners spending a much smaller percentage of what they earn and the bottom earners spending almost all or close to all of what they earn. There's some merit to the argument that Asher Edelman is raising right now in favor of Bernie Sanders.

His statements reflect a (justifiable) view on income and wealth inequality, which is better addressed through the tax code and the budget process (i.e., spending more on public education, spending more on infrastructure development, etc.) They do not touch on the need for imposing additional regulations on the financial services sector of the economy (which - believe me - is now very, very heavily regulated).

.....

Also...

I dunno - I mean, she can spin her immigration views to be more liberal than Sanders, and more conservative than Trump.

Sanders, Clinton, and Cruz, on the other hand, are committed ideologues.

I think that we project a lot of our own preconceived notions on some of the candidates - I know that I am certainly guilty of doing it - and I think it is god to read through each candidate's positions (ignorant of their identity, if possible) before choosing to vote for someone.

.....

I'm very conservative, so y'all can probably already figure out who I'm leaning towards.

Then, as a city-dwelling, wine-sipping, liberal elite, I am glad that we are able to reach across the aisle and agree that bracingly difficult, 8-bit platformers are totally, totally awesome.

[Blu]

Ah, that makes much more sense.

I'm curious what you think about corporate personhood. Do you believe it opens up some unethical legal guidelines or double voting? I have no idea how our tax code works, other than somehow it has allowed the transfer of wealth to get us where we are now. What would be a good alternative to what we currently have?

[Jmustang1968]

If on the news of Bernie being elected, the stock market would take a historic dump. You know how many would be selling in a rush?

I dislike a lot of the financial and some of the supposed equality things he is pushing. Many of this stuff is a broad overstep of the federal government upon stuff generally state governed.

My solace would be that congress wouldnt pass most of his proposals anyway, so I think he would be fairly impotent in office.

[Sarge]

I'm very conservative, so y'all can probably already figure out who I'm leaning towards.

Then, as a city-dwelling, wine-sipping, liberal elite, I am glad that we are able to reach across the aisle and agree that bracingly difficult, 8-bit platformers are totally, totally awesome.

Absolutely. See, there are areas where bi-partisanship is possible!

(As for Hillary, I'm very cognizant of her stated positions, so I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be my choice even if she somehow inhabited Ted Cruz's body. And now I'm thinking about what a political Freaky Friday would look like.)

EDIT: Not that things haven't been freaky already.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Ah, that makes much more sense.

I'm curious what you think about corporate personhood. Do you believe it opens up some unethical legal guidelines or double voting? I have no idea how our tax code works, other than somehow it has allowed the transfer of wealth to get us where we are now. What would be a good alternative to what we currently have?

Corporations are legal fictions designed to promote economic development through principles of limited liability. (They were a great idea, BTW, and they have been stunningly successful in that regard.) As such, they must possess due-process and property rights. IMO, however, they should not possess rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, right to vote, etc. that more rightly belong only to natural citizens.

I am by no means an expert on tax policy, but IMO, the tax code should be revised in the following ways: (1) remove the limit on the amount of income subject to "payroll" taxes (e.g., social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc.); (2) tax all capital gains and dividend income at the same rate as ordinary income; (3) increase limits on charitable contributions deductions; and (4) reduce the estate tax threshold. I think that these basic changes, in addition to raising more revenue, would make the tax code more "fair" by requiring everyone to pay federal income taxes at <basically> the same rate. (Certainly, the tax code would remain regressive, but these changes would prevent the very wealthy and the highest income earners from paying a lower rate than the rest of the population.)

IMO, these changes would make the tax system more "fair" and, coupled with focused spending on education, infrastructure, and social services, would "level the playing field" in our society a bit. By no means would these changes eliminate all wealth or income disparity, and I don't think that elimination of that disparity should be our society's goal. (IMO, people who are smarter, stronger, more clever, better educated, work harder, etc. deserve to have more.) I think that they would produce a more "fair" society, however, where everyone plays by basically the same rules, which IMO, is the most we can hope for from our government.

[Pulsar_t]

When other nations increase their military budget: Oh noes threat to world stability!
Hypocrisy at its finest.

[MrEco]

Ya know, I sometimes find myself wondering "how is the world gonna end?" I don't mean in some crazy conspiratorial way of aliens taking over the world or Fallout happening, and not in any sort of religious ragnarok style either. I mean in scientific terms, of human irresponsibility and regular store brand entropy.

Will pollution or it's step brother global warming make the planet uninhabitable? Will we run out of space and be done in by over population? Run out of resources and no longer be able to sustain ourselves? What's gonna get us first?

And are we gonna be able to jump onto another planet before that happens?

I mean just today I was thinking about all the garbage we accumulate. It takes up a massive amount of space, and it isn't great for the environment. The largest "landfill" in the world is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, two spots on the Pacific ocean where garbage has accumulated and circles itself in the current. Each of the two patches is bigger than the state of Texas. Just today on my way home from work I was thinking about all that garbage, and wondering why we just dump it into landfills and call it a day? Sure there are scientists and such looking to fix the problem, but people at large don't seem all that concerned about it. Probably because the landfills are kept far away from civilization. Out of sight out of mind.

This is maybe more of a cool hypothetical idea than an actual solution, but how plausible would it be to launch our garbage into the sun? Obviously with our current technology that would be incredibly expensive, but maybe in the future. 50 years from now we might have a massive cannon that loads up compressed shells of garbage and shoots them into the sun? Something like the cannon in that Jules Verne novel, From the Earth to the Moon?


But even if we find a solution for all the garbage in the world, even if we clean up pollution and use entirely renewable energy, even if we solve world hunger and create peace among all men, nothing can really stop the drain on resources right? I guess that's the ultimate killer, though perhaps the slowest. What possible solution could get around that? I guess colonizing another planet. We better max out our tech tree before that time comes.