Basically title. I'm trying to open my mind and understand both sides of the political argument for/against Trump

Has the increase in spending in American politics by corporation damaged congress's ability to accurately represent the American people? Has the increase in spending in American politics by corporations damaged congress's ability to accurately represent the American people? Interests groups have gained so influence on what is bills are being discussed based on how much they spend on lobbying. Campaign costs have risen so much that most candidates have to make deals with super pacts to win. Has all of this damaged the ability of these congressmen to represent who they are supposed to represent the everyday people of their districts or states?

I'm finding those that don't care about liberty don't care about any difference implied by these labels. Or maybe its better to say the people who want to quash the liberty of their neighbor seem to feel more liberated by authoritarianism when it isn't articulated as authoritarianism. Authoritarianism has such negative connotations so nobody actually "wants" it, but they advocate for it either deceitfully or unwittingly.

Me and my friend Tony host a podcast where we cover a wide range of topics including many political and political-adjacent subjects and I would love to find someone with whom one or both of us could have a debate. PM me if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaC0q6ll5lKWXRYwfdn-Omg

First Socialism:We need Socialism because automation and robots will just take over most of the jobs in the future and hence if we don't have some type of universal minimum income which is taken as tax from those who make money, people can not afford to live in this planet without a job which they don't have.

Secondly Eugenics:As ruthless as it might sound, we just can't let the "undesirables" breed out the "desirables".

Like I know that there are huge issues with the question of "How do we determine who are undesirables?" but because the option of doing nothing will eventually lead to bad genes out numbering good ones, hence causing human genetic regression, we just cannot afford to not do anything and hence action is justified.

So I won’t argue on whether blue collar jobs are more demanding than white collar jobs because that’s hard to determine and I think that unless you’re talking about the more extreme cases (like billionaires), the amount of labor done per hour is roughly equal. However, between the poor and upper middle class workers, there is a significant disparity between the amount of labor given per dollar earned: An Interactive Exploration Of Earnings By Hours Worked. Dentists make about $86 per hour (~200k per year) whereas brick masons make $17 per hour (~30k per year). In other words, the brick mason would have to work 5 times harder than the dentist does to make a dollar. It’s like if a kid spent hours making an ok drawing while another kid spent ten minutes making a masterpiece. If I had to tear up one of the drawings, which do you think I would feel worse about doing? The first kid, right? Likewise, because the brickmason worked harder to make a dollar than the dentist did, the mason has a greater claim to that dollar than the dentist does. This doesn’t just give the government the moral obligation to not tax in proportion to the amount of money made but rather to tax at a rate in proportion to the amount of labor required to produce that money. So if the brickmason pays 5% of his income on taxes, the dentist should pay 25% of his salary to tax.

Racial Equality or Racial Equity?

Racial equality, defined more so as equal opportunity, and social safety nets aiding those who are disadvantaged, and preventing those programs from being racially discriminatory. Racial equity is having equal parts in a company or business or government-particularly leadership roles being equally diversified. New slogans include "be the QUIT in eQUITy" in efforts to balance the race discrepancy in these places. Is racial equity just? Does equal opportunity extend all the way to equity in the workplace? In our government?

I'm sorry for the people who think "Trumpism" is a thing. You may be asking ,out all presidents why do we have criticize only Donald trump. The answer is he entered politics in a time where democrats have earned the hearts of Americans after Bush's horrible term. Now Trump does not have a law background when which fueled the question on if he is fit to be president. The democrats then started ridiculing every aspect of him. I feel it was a political motivation more than anything to get trump purposely out of office because of one thing. He was not a democrat. This is seen in many senses as he had friends who were democrats from Hollywood but when they saw him run they had campaigns against him. Democrats not just lawmakers but everyone who starting to badmouth trump should be accountable for defamation of a honest man into a person who laughed at. All of us know we can criticize Joe Biden but we don't because he is a democrat. This is corruption in America and debate me if u think different

I know that black people and other minorities are more likely to be a victim of racism but why do we have to call it reverse racism when it’s against white people. The definition of racism is think someone is above or below some because if there race. It said nothing about what color they are. It’s so hypocritical.

He has signed 41 executive orders. Instead of doing it the right way he is just signing them into laws so no one can stop him. Some of which are to help him and of democrat leaders stay in office.

The election has clear indications of fraud, most notably with counting stopped in the middle of the night in 6 states, and after counting stopped all 6 states saw huge improbable vote shifts for biden. This combined with the fact that biden received by far the most votes in any presidential election ever while losing the most counties of a winning president and trump having record minority support.

In this election we had procedures never seen before all with multiple opportunities to cheat, and while we've seen cheating in elections before- eg nixon vs kennedy in 1960- never before have you seen from the top down such vitriolic hatred of a candidate with it clear that so many would do anything to get rid of trump.

Given all this there should certainly be a full audit, a full audit should not even need a reason in a democracy let alone in a case like this, and the fact that not only is this denied but the mere suggestion of fraud is met with hysterics from the left (who has been crying hysterically about fraud for the past 5 years) is more suspicious. Is there any doubt these people at the least are willing to cheat?

What are the differences and pros and cons. I'm undecided on the matter. My quick take thinks that a path to citizenship will have immigrants paying into the system opposed to benefiting and not paying in. My body, a conservative, says that illegal imegration will now be incentivized.

Why don’t we try this tax.

Ok here my out ( the numbers are adjusted for inflation and cost of living in your area.) For workers the first 100k ( 200k if you are married) you make is untaxed. The second 100k( 200k if you are married)is taxes at 5 percent. Everything else is taxes at 20 percent

For business the first 500k is untaxed to encourage small businesses growth and more hiring. More tax credits to hire more people.After than the tax rate is 20 percent. Anything over 1 billion is taxed at 35 percent.

Tax benefits for companies to hire more people, pay people more, expand,and eat at restaurants.

No wealth tax.

Estate tax is abolished up to 1 billion. Anything over 1 billion is taxed at 25 percent when you die. Anything over 10 billion is 50 percent. You have 30 years to pay this off with inflation rate interest. This makes it so they don’t have to sell business or income real estate.

Privatize social security- why am I forced to have my money in something that makes 3 percent annually. In index funds I can make 9 percent annually. What do you think?

Ban rent control- this makes it so there are less buildings. Hurting renters. Keep real estate tax benefits.

Tax benefits to programs that are good for economy- ex Tesla or wave power lights.

For student loan crisis put inflation increase on state schools. Not on private schools . Also give grants to new schools because more schools will lower the price of education. Make it a tax wright off. This makes them want to eventually make enough so it affects them.

Huge budget cuts. No wars. Cut military budget in half. Might have to be more. No aid to other countries. No welfare. No government spending on healthcare. Cut most other programs and get rid of the national debt. ( I know not all debt is bad. I have millions of debt on my apartment buildings. But this is bad debt not good debt. The national debt does not produce a income. Good debt does.)

So what do you think? Will this help or hurt the GDP growth, Americans, the middle class, and small businesses?

So I would like to hear peoples opinions on my thoughts on the Right.

I think they have a point because their politics actually make sense when you look it from the nationalist perspective. So in my opinion nationalism would need to be shown to be wrong before the Right would be wrong. Is there actually any real case against nationalism however?

Nationalism makes sense: Like nationalism makes a lot of sense since more global form of government wouldn't be protecting the interest of regional groups as good as nationalism would. Like it would seem that people should want to live in a nationalistic country simultaneously as they would want everyone else in the world to live in a globalist country, because this way they would keep their political power but also enjoy the benefits of the situation of others not having power. It would be easy to exploit others and to keep the economy driving with well planned import tax which would

1. force global companies to move their production to that country as far as it would be reasonable, so by producing jobs, and
2. protect the local businesses against global mass produced food and other items that the country could produce locally.

Globalism seems to be harmful: Like it would seem like that globalism is driven by the money of multinational mega corporations which use different tactics to cause changes which further their own interest either directly or indirectly.

I know that this is pretty much the populist paradigm, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be true. What are your thoughts people? Is the populist paradigm actually the true picture of the world and what is happening in it, or am I missing something?

Please state your vote on whether you think this reddit group should have a discord server dedicated to politics.

View Poll

Biden is making deals with china and with only in office for a little over a month he is already getting investigated, This is NOT American way.

Since societies have grown larger than a family unit, their cooperating members have been plagued by cheaters, interested only in sucking up the benefits of the cooperative society while refusing to bear their share of the burdens.

In order to protect themselves from these cheaters, societies have developed various systems ranging from social shunning to execution.

This massive Covid-19 pandemic has given rise to a new class of cheaters we might call "Spreaders" - those refusing to protect others by abiding by mask, quarantine and vaccination rules. Seven centuries ago, people suspected of spreading the Black Plague were burned to death in widespread massacres. But in our civilized society we wouldn't want to actually physically harm Our selfish Spreaders, but they must be encouraged to cooperate. Financial incentives must suffice.

Therefore I offer a modest proposal for the post-vaccine Covid-19 era.

The government would provide a monthly pandemic payment to everybody to help offset the economic costs of the pandemic. If a Spreader is caught violating mask or isolation rules, they'd be given a citation, put on a 'no-pay' list, and their monthly pandemic payments would be terminated until they personally paid for a vaccination.

The government would make vaccination appointments for everyone, and pay for all vaccinations, except for those people on the no-pay list, who would have to pay for it them themselves. When vaccinations are completed, the person would get a certificate of vaccination. which would also be recorded centrally. If they were on the no-pay list, they would be removed from it, unless they repeated their violations.

The government would pay for all treatment for covid-19 cases, but ONLY IF the patient provides a certificate of vaccination and is not on the no-pay list. People who had refused to be vaccinated would still be treated, but would have to pay for it themselves. If they failed to pay, unpaid costs would be added to their taxes, deducted from their government benefits such as unemployment insurance, etc. As with student debt, these debts would carry a hefty interest rate and not be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

None of this would violate anyone's rights. Spreaders would still have the Freedom to exercise their 'rights' to threaten the rest of society by ignoring public health rules. If they caught Covid-19, they would still have the right be treated, but at their own cost. They would lose any claimed 'right' to demand that society pay them for the consequences of their reckless omissions.

The money for all these government payments would either be added to the Deficit, like the recent trillion-dollar billionaires-tax-cut bill, by a billionaire wealth tax, or from the Military.

The U.S. Military's ultimate purpose is to defend the lives of US Citizens. It currently consumes ~$700 Billion annually, apx. half of all discretionary Federal spending. The Covid-19 invasion has already killed about 2/3 as many US citizens as were killed in WWII! It would not be unreasonable to divert some of that Military budget to defend the lives of US citizens right here at home from the Covid-19 invasion.

Unfortunately, there's precious little chance that any elected official would actually do what I suggest.

I have a wife going through the green card process, and we live currently in very rural Idaho near a private university campus. She has a lot of foreign student friends who are conservative, and they frequently make the claim that helping illegal immigrants is frustrating because it makes them feel like they're doing all this work to become citizens for nothing. What are some counterpoints to this argument?

A few of my assumptions first:

I believe that people are inherently good. Definitely not all of them. Political power definitely attracts more of the evil (both sides of the isle).

I believe that being selfish/self serving and being inherently good are not mutually exclusive.

I think that “left leaning” ideologies do not work if we assume that people are not inherently good. We want “the society” to band together for a common goal. This doesn’t work if we assume that people are not inherently good.

If we assume that people are evil then socialistic/communist ideas are dead in the water, because you can’t trust a large government to take care of its people. This would mean that previous attempts at socialism/communist weren’t just failed implementations, but are doomed from the start and will never work.

Given the current political discourse, ESPECIALLY on Reddit, anyone who voted for trump is a racist or is stupid.

So my argument is: You can’t have it both ways. You can’t believe that people are inherently good (which I believe is a must for more left leaning governments to work) and also say that half of the USA population is evil and racist.

Points for debate: Are people inherently good? Does the inherent goodness or lack thereof have a bearing on style of government? How does a political system work if were inherently not good?

I can elaborate more, I just don’t want to start with a wall of text.

https://www.cato.org/research/catos-62-percent-solution

I like the plan, so why not debate about it?

View Poll

The website, meaning debatepolitics.com