TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 13 of 558 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415161718232833384348535863113263513 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 13937

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #301
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    One last thing - a great example of a libertarian dilemma is vaccination. If individual rights are paramount, then people should be able to choose who gets vaccinations. But if the public health is paramount, then everyone who can get vaccinated must. Likewise - I as a parent have the option of living in a society with a minuscule risk of catching life-threatening viral disease encroached upon by those who consider it a decision which only concerns them. No one lives in a vacuum and much of libertarianism ignores this or treats it as simply another attack on liberty, which is bizarre.

  2. #302
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post

    Regarding "lazy poor people", I'm actually in favour of the existence of such a thing, since there are demonstrably fewer jobs than there are working age people and this is only going to get worse with consolidation and streamlining of large multinationals buying everything and centralising operations. In addition, technology is improving to the extent where there are fewer people needed for a wide range of jobs from retail assistants to manufactures. Rather than treat the disenfranchised as the "surplus population", giving them a universal basic income will re-purpose them as a de facto economic stimulator,
    You know I used to think the idea of a universal income was total madness. But it seems that we're continuously removing the amount of work that needs doing, to automation and outsourcing, whilst still expecting everyone to work for a living. That doesn't quite add up. New jobs are created in hi tech and creative fields, of course. But I can't believe that for every 100 factory workers or taxi drivers that are out of a job, we get 100 programmers or artists or whatever.

    So, yeah, we might just have to start guaranteeing a respectable standard of living to people whether they work or not.. Although there will be an awful lot of resistance to the idea. I have no idea how you'd set it up without the right and business types kicking and screaming.

  3. #303
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    If you stop looking at it as giving away free money and see it as utilising excess workers as a mechanism for diffusing financial stimulus into the economy based solely on good old supply and demand, it actually sounds like a decent idea. Sure it doesn't sit right with some people that there exist other people living without work while they toil away, but unless we somehow manufacture a society which guarantees a job per person, I don't see a better solution.

    Other factors which affect the availability of jobs are:

    1) Wages so low that people have to work 2 or sometimes 3 different jobs, eating into the overall amount of hours work to go around

    2) Austerity reforms like we're seeing in the UK where people on incapacity benefit are being re-assessed and deemed fit to work (often when they blatantly aren't) increases the number of job-seekers

    3) Austerity measures resulting in people losing their welfare / benefits = increase in number of job-seekers.

    4) Workfare - free labour given to businesses by the government to ostensibly transition people back into work, but in reality, it just ends up being an asset exploited by the companies. Why employ someone when you can just keep rotating in workfare slaves?

    A lot of people also like to blame migrants / immigrants, but don't seem to understand that a net increase in population also creates extra demand, so there's an offset (the extent is tricky to quantify one way or the other though).
    Last edited by faetal; 29th Apr 2016 at 10:56.

  4. #304
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    There's a lot to like a Universal Basic Income. Since everybody gets it, it avoids the marginal-income problem of poor families where the work they do reduces the benefits they get. It removes the need to administer a significant number of social programs. It frees people up to make Glade Raid whatever silly ideas they have.

    I'm not convinced we're actually ready for it, though. The U.S. in particular could really really benefit from a level of infrastructure spending that would basically obviate any labor surplus. As long as that's true, it seems more important in the short term.

  5. #305
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    I support the idea of a universal basic income but the concern I have is that it might cause accelerated inflation / devaluation of currencies.

    While currency a symbolic medium of exchange it is treated like a commodity in money markets. It is possible that certain interests might seek to punish participating countries by screwing over their economies.

    I also wonder if injecting a lot of new cash into large economies might have a similar effect to the 15th century, colonial Spanish unloading literally tons of plundered gold and silver into it's economy. When everybody has a purse full of gold, gold loses its value.

    Just some thoughts.

  6. #306
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea

    Make America Mexico Again!






    The illegals and their civilization-destroying sympathizers, are very upset that a President Trump would foil their plan to turn California into Mexico!



    Such destructive behavior only supports the building of a great wall, as a matter of necessity, for the sake of security and integrity of the country.

  7. #307
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    I support the idea of a universal basic income but the concern I have is that it might cause accelerated inflation / devaluation of currencies.
    Nobody's suggesting that UBI be supported by printing money. Really, those aren't particularly connected at all.

  8. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    I support the idea of a universal basic income but the concern I have is that it might cause accelerated inflation / devaluation of currencies.

    While currency a symbolic medium of exchange it is treated like a commodity in money markets. It is possible that certain interests might seek to punish participating countries by screwing over their economies.

    I also wonder if injecting a lot of new cash into large economies might have a similar effect to the 15th century, colonial Spanish unloading literally tons of plundered gold and silver into it's economy. When everybody has a purse full of gold, gold loses its value.

    Just some thoughts.
    Isn't that a huge "conspiracy theory" to suggest that some evil power would try to shut that down?

    In the first place it is not in their interests to do so. Guaranteed income = more disposable income = more people buying the cheap crap multinationals sell. They sure as hell don't need the labor from 1st worlders when they can get Chinese or Indians to do it for pennies on the dollar.

    Second is they don't have the ability to do what you suggest because the idea that anyone can manipulate that kind of thing in perpetuity is a "big lie" of economics. Manipulations do exist but the only successful ones have been short term ones designed to benefit parties involved in a transaction oe trade. Reversing a market trend is impossible. Every single currency peg recorded in history has broken ranging from the Gold Standard to the Franc. They've also demonstrated a complete inability to do so. Right now the US establishment is desperate to create USD inflation but had been completely unable to do so.

  9. #309
    On Universal its not an entirely bad idea because it achieves the purpose of welfare without the red tape.
    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/a...-basic-income/

    Fun fact: It was the DEMOCRATS who shut down the proposal when it was first introduced by a Republican administration.

  10. #310
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Fun fact: It was the DEMOCRATS who shut down the proposal when it was first introduced by a Republican administration.
    Considering it happened during Nixon's administration, this doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is how few people either don't know, or don't acknowledge the fact that our two parties have never maintained a steady ideological consistency throughout the years. Before the 60's, the democrat and republican parties were the polar opposites of what they are now.

    At one time, the South was a democrat stronghold, and the democrats themselves a very conservative party. FDR began the slow change that'd eventually lead to this reversal of stance for the democrats, with Nixon's southern strategy, combined with the rise of Barry Goldwater finalizing it, effectively changing the republicans from the progressive party of Lincoln, to what they are today.

  11. #311
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    What does surprise me is how few people either don't know, or don't acknowledge the fact that our two parties have never maintained a steady ideological consistency throughout the years.
    What amuses me is how readily conservatives like to cite their old party acting like Democrats, and old Democrats acting like Republicans. It's like they know perfectly well they're on the wrong side.

  12. #312
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    At one time, the South was a democrat stronghold, and the democrats themselves a very conservative party. FDR began the slow change that'd eventually lead to this reversal of stance for the democrats, with Nixon's southern strategy, combined with the rise of Barry Goldwater finalizing it, effectively changing the republicans from the progressive party of Lincoln, to what they are today.
    That's right except the battle for progressive control of the parties started way before FDR. In the 1890s-1920s both parties had an inner struggle between the progressives and the old political machines. In 1896, the progressive Bryan got the Dem nomination by force of charisma, but lost to the Rep machine's candidate McKinley. Then things really got started with the Rep machine trying to keep the progressive Teddy Roosevelt down by making him VP, Mckinley dies, a progressive then controls the Reps.

    the machine converts his hand picked heir Taft, TR jumps back in the ring in 1912 under a third party, Rep vote splits, and the Dem progressive Wilson wins with a ton less votes than the 1908 Dem candidate lost by, and progessivism was established in the Dem party. The Rep machine entrenches & rules the presidency until the Depression and FDR starts the path you mention.

  13. #313
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    One of the biggest problem with a libertarian marketplace is that the investor caste ends up acting like cancer - wages and benefits down, number of jobs reduced, cost of commodities the highest they can go, squeezing everyone as far as they can until the system stops moving, at which point, a lot of debt becomes necessary to prop it up.
    At some point, someone has to realise that growth can't go on forever because you need to leave some money in society so that people can pay for the things which generate profit.
    While it's a huge generalisation, I see (an idealised version of) socialism as being like a doctor treating a patient to ensure the best combination of longevity and well-being. A libertarian system is more like "let's not treat cancer, they're just the most successful cells".

  14. #314
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    The illegals and their civilization-destroying sympathizers, are very upset that a President Trump would foil their plan to turn California into Mexico!
    Hmm you do realize hispanics/blacks will be a majority in the US in a few years right? Hence it will be their country, not yours.

    And you do realize there's nothing you can do about it short of mass deportation/sterilization/genocide, right?

    Why complain about something that's inevitable? It's like complaining that water is wet or that fire burns. Either make peace with it or find yourself another country.

  15. #315
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Chicago, IL
    Not sure if trolling, but...should Europeans "make peace" with the fact that North African muslims will soon be the majority in many European nations?

  16. #316
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    The current number of Muslims in the EU number around 20 million, which is about 4% of the entire EU population. I don't think ole Europe has much to worry about on that front.

    It's the same here in the US. Hispanics/blacks are closing in on parity with the white population, but they've still got a ways to go before that happens, certainly not within a few years. I think the current breakdown has Hispanics and blacks roughly equal with each other, making up around 12-13% of the population respectively. Asians are next, making up around 4%. Caucasians are the majority, with 69% of the population.

    For Hispanics to become the majority, it'd take practically the entire population of Mexico rushing the border for that to happen. And even then, the majority would be only by a bare percent at most.

  17. #317
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    I don't know what argument you're trying to make Manwe. I think you have to consider immigration policy independently, regardless of what demographic changes are projected to occur in the future.

    Every time a first-world nation softens their immigration policy, or even hints at it, the result is a humanitarian crisis.

    When I was living in Australia, and the Labor government closed the Nauru detention camp and pledged to settle asylum claims more quickly, it was like there was a giant flashing neon OPEN sign hanging over the country. The result was a humanitarian disaster. Nearby pacific islands filled up with migrants, who gave their life's savings to human smuggling rings in order to be packed onto overloaded derelict boats, many of which were wrecked by the seas. Those that made it intact to Australia or were rescued from shipwrecks ended up in detention camps. The humanitarian crisis was far worse than if the migrants had just stayed at home.

    Something similar happened after the US government under GWB amended the The Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2008, eventually resulting in a mass migration of Central American children. Unaccompanied children were smuggled en masse by human traffickers into the US and Mexico resulting in a crisis that peaked in 2014 before the Obama administration tightened policies.

    A year later an even bigger crisis hit Europe. We all know how that's turning out.

    The history lesson is pretty clear to me. Loose immigration policies result in humanitarian crises; more people dying, migrants stuck in limbo, concentration camps, etc. For every legit refugee that makes it to a better life, there are far more refugees and migrants who end up worse off than if they had stayed home. The bleeding hearts end up hurting the people they intended to help.

  18. #318
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    BTW -


  19. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    One last thing - a great example of a libertarian dilemma is vaccination. If individual rights are paramount, then people should be able to choose who gets vaccinations. But if the public health is paramount, then everyone who can get vaccinated must. Likewise - I as a parent have the option of living in a society with a minuscule risk of catching life-threatening viral disease encroached upon by those who consider it a decision which only concerns them. No one lives in a vacuum and much of libertarianism ignores this or treats it as simply another attack on liberty, which is bizarre.

    You're also forgetting that vaccines were widely accepted, widely used, and succeeded in eliminating diseases in the absence of any government mandate to use them.


    The other problem is that YOU don't get to decide what's mandatory. It's the same "elites who need profit" that you've previously railed against that get to decide what's necessary for you. The same logic that allows the government to mandate an invasive procedure like vaccination would also mean that government can decide it's bad for women's health to have an abortion (which is factually correct), therefore it's in the public interests to ban abortion in all instances including rape.

    They could also decide that because homosexuals have a much higher rate of HIV infection(again, factually correct), that the most effective way to prevent AIDS from threatening society is to ban all homosexual behavior in order to stop the spread.



    You probably think each of those arguments is fantastically stupid. That's the point
    , but under the system of government you argue for would mean that were I to seize power I would be fully entitled to enforce that logic at gunpoint and you would have no legal or legislative recourse to stop me.



    There's also a key dynamic in the United States that you're forgetting about: the State system. In the US there is simply no reason for most of those regulations to exist at the Federal level when the various state legislatures are more than capable of making those calls themselves. This leaves individual states perfectly free to implement whatever medical, economic, and other policies they as long as they don't infringe on freedom of speech/religion, due process, or other state's rights.

  20. #320
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Tony, if I'm following you correctly, you believe the government has no right to enforce anything that could benefit the whole, because even a destructive exercise of solipsistic personal freedoms is still a protected right?

  21. #321
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    It's an interesting topic for sure. Vaccines are shown to carry negligible risk versus the diseases they prevent, by orders of magnitude, yet some people see the vaccines as somehow the riskier option, largely based on a combination of generic authority superstition or having watched too much X-Files combined with the lasting "better safe than sorry" effect of some fraudulent research which came from the UK. As with all social systems though, we have to consider where the onus of rights vs responsibilities are. Is giving anti-vaxers the right to be idiots more important that the reduced risk of preventable diseases with significant mortality and morbidity for everyone? What about the immuno-compromised , the elderly, those allergic to certain vaccine ingredients?

    We legislate for all kinds of things based on what's best for society as a whole, I don't see why vaccines are any different. I'm super glad that I live in France where you can't send your kids to school unless they have the important vaccines. I know I can send my daughter in without her risking infection. How much freedom do people really need and to what extent do we allow varying levels of ignorance to put everyone at risk?

    Your counter-arguments are ridiculous, but not for the reason you think. If two homosexual guys have sex, they are doing so knowing the risks if they don't use protection. A kid being denied a safe way to avoid dangerous disease is not equivalent in any meaningful way, because the outcome of this is that my kid has a higher risk of contracting a disease which could kill her or leave her disabled simply because someone else has decide to make their kid a part of their lifestyle choice. Likewise with your abortion argument - it doesn't affect society as a whole (unless abortions are contagious somehow), it's a personal right which doesn't emanate out into society (other than offending the tender sensibilities of religious folks who can't keep their beliefs to themselves).

    This is the key part of why libertarianism falls down - if your freedoms have effects which fuck with other people's, then a compromise needs to be devised. Gay sex and abortion don't affect anyone not directly involved - vaccination has a society-wide effect. Do you see the difference?

  22. #322
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I don't know what argument you're trying to make Manwe. I think you have to consider immigration policy independently, regardless of what demographic changes are projected to occur in the future.
    I wasn't trolling and I wasn't making an argument for immigration. I'm actually opposed to immigration and I agree with you on the humanitarian crises: it's tragic for everyone involved. I was talking about second or third generation immigrants. I don't know how it works in the US but here in France we have a lot of those. They are French because they were born in France from French parents. The fact that they're Muslims or dark skinned is meaningless. However, there's a certain fringe of the population that simply doesn't understand this and that wants these "immigrants" to be sent back to wherever. To these people I say there are only three realistic solutions to your "problem": mass deportation, mass sterilization, or mass murder. But they don't want to admit that because that would be too extreme even for them.

    Now some people will say "oh but we just need to close the border to solve the problem". But even if you do close the border and don't let a single new immigrant in (which will never happen) they'll still outnumber whites in a few years. Why? Because of their ridiculously high birth rate. A birth rate that has nothing to do with their customs, religion, or skin colour, and everything to do with the fact that they're poor. And poor people make a shit ton of babies. Now I don't have any numbers to back that up but I'm pretty sure that's a universal rule (I come from a very poor family if that helps, although there was just my brother and me).

    The projections you mentioned are interesting in that they're completely different from what I learned in my US civilization classes. I seem to remember clearly whites being outnumbered by blacks/hispanics by the year 2050, or did I get that wrong? I don't have the numbers on hand so maybe I did.

    As far as France is concerned, uh, you literally have to be blind to not see what's going on. To put it bluntly: there are a lot more dark skinned people than there used to be. And you know what? That's fine with me. Because, you see, unlike what Krush is saying they're not "North African Muslims", they're European Muslims. Yes, Islam is the main religion in France, and yes Arabic is the unofficial second language of the country. At least in big city centres like where I live. That's not true of the rural parts of the country of course. So you either make peace with that, or you're headed for civil war (which is a strong possibility here).

  23. #323
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    This is the key part of why libertarianism falls down - if your freedoms have effects which fuck with other people's, then a compromise needs to be devised. Gay sex and abortion don't affect anyone not directly involved - vaccination has a society-wide effect. Do you see the difference?
    This.

    See, I had an allergic reaction to the DPT vaccine when I was just a toddler, one bad enough that I had to be taken to the emergency room over it. Because of this, I wasn't able to complete my rounds. I've had tetanus shots since, so I don't have to live in mortal fear of rusty nails, but I may very well be susceptible to whooping cough.

    Now if everyone else took their vaccines, I wouldn't have anything to worry about. I might have to be weary of the occasional foreigner from the ass ends of the earth, but for the most part, herd immunity would make me safe by proxy. It wouldn't be that much of a concern to me.

    But with this whole antivaxxer trend kicking off lately, I might not have that luxury anymore. People are opting out of giving their kids their shots because of blah blah blah, and so and so, which means we're now fielding a fairly large population of people who can act as carriers of this disease I have no immunity for. If one of these kids catches it from one of those people from the ass end of the earth, it'll spread, and I'll find myself at risk.

    I might get whooping cough.

    So who's freedom is more important here? Isn't my right to not have to worry about getting an entirely preventable disease at least as important as some dipshit's masturbatory stance against a medication that has absolutely no downsides whatsoever?

  24. #324
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Manwe View Post
    As far as France is concerned, uh, you literally have to be blind to not see what's going on. To put it bluntly: there are a lot more dark skinned people than there used to be. And you know what? That's fine with me. Because, you see, unlike what Krush is saying they're not "North African Muslims", they're European Muslims. Yes, Islam is the main religion in France, and yes Arabic is the unofficial second language of the country. At least in big city centres like where I live. That's not true of the rural parts of the country of course. So you either make peace with that, or you're headed for civil war (which is a strong possibility here).
    Do you live in France? Because I do and I have to say that anywhere I've been, the majority religious building is still the church and the faces on the street are still predominantly white. Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference either way. If the majority of French people ended up being North African migrants who are Muslim, then that's just what being French will mean after X amount of time. Humans are a migratory species (note, we're all the same species and the word race is essentially meaningless), there is no argument other than chauvinism to think that we should be able to preserve the specific ethnic and religious make up of a nation as it was at a specific moment in time which is arbitrarily considered to the correct way? It's bullshit - the make up of nations and societies is ever changing. If you want to draw lines in the sand based on ethnicity and religion, that's just chauvinism.

  25. #325
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Do you live in France? Because I do and I have to say that anywhere I've been, the majority religious building is still the church and the faces on the street are still predominantly white.
    Yes, I'm French and I live in France, the south more specifically. Churches are abandoned. They're museums now. Catholicism is a dying religion here while islam is booming and conversions are exploding.

    Try going to Montpellier, Marseille, or Paris. And check the Muslim districts of these cities. You won't see a majority of white faces there but you'll see a lot of people praying in the streets at the time of prayer.

    And again that's fine. But denying that it's the future of the country is denying reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference either way. If the majority of French people ended up being North African migrants who are Muslim, then that's just what being French will mean after X amount of time.
    That is exactly what I said. Except they're not North African. They're French and have been for two or three generations for the most of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Humans are a migratory species (note, we're all the same species and the word race is essentially meaningless), there is no argument other than chauvinism to think that we should be able to preserve the specific ethnic and religious make up of a nation as it was at a specific moment in time which is arbitrarily considered to the correct way? It's bullshit - the make up of nations and societies is ever changing. If you want to draw lines in the sand based on ethnicity and religion, that's just chauvinism.
    I never said I wanted to preserve anything. I actually agree with you on all the above.

Page 13 of 558 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415161718232833384348535863113263513 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •