Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
I’m gonna stop you right there because that’s not accurate. White people love social security and welfare and Medicare in general; they just hate when people of color get treated as their equals. They’ve done studies on this;
white people strongly support social programs in general, but often turn against them when shown they’ll benefit black and brown people.
Also, it comes across very condescending for you, a German person, to explain to multiple Americans how we supposedly think and how we can supposedly talk to other Americans best, especially given the broad and inaccurate generalizations you’re making.
Edited by wisewillow on Dec 2nd 2018 at 5:24:50 AM
I'd also argue that 'the CDU invented it' is hugeass bullshit. They may have implemented it - and I maintain that this was only because they had to compromise with a SPD who wanted that and more instead of just doing it of the good of their hearts - but they sure as fuck did not invent it.
"You can reply to this Message!"The person who cannot provide for themselves or their next of kin is entitled to aid from the government, though not without accepting the restrictions placed upon them by the law.
Section 75 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark, drafted circa 1848.
Citation fucking needed.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.What Shaoken said. The main distinction between Trump and the other Republicans - including Pence - is that he's less adept at executing/hiding their agenda, not that he's more evil than that pack.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI apologize if I misread the US voters. I am just throwing ideas around. Currently the one thing the different groups of Democrats seem to have in common is that they all more or less want some sort of social market economy in the US. It's a good goal to run on, but I have noticed that in debates everything even remotely "social" is immediately pushed into "this is far left utopia, who is supposed to pay for it" corner. That's why I feel a good counter argument would be "it pays for itself because…" or "it will recoup the costs because…" or "it will save us money, because..." Cortez is already doing this, but the problem is that she then tend to go off a tangent about senseless government spending, that the point is usually lost.
The best weapon against social ideas is always "but who should pay for it? No our tax payer money, right?" So you need to sidestep this train of thought from the get go.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I said "more or less" for a reason. Credit where Credit is due, without Ludwig Erhard it might have just stayed a theory. There were naturally thinkers (including Müller-Armack, who coined the word) before him on which he based the concept.
Edited by Swanpride on Dec 2nd 2018 at 2:37:31 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
It goes back way further than that, mate. The social contract was a very Danelaw idea, and Hobbes knew it. He put words to it, but... That's what The Leviathan basically is: an ode to the concept of society working (and paying) for all parts of society (and Very Bad Things happening when bits don't work for all).
Edited by Euodiachloris on Dec 2nd 2018 at 10:33:51 AM
Being a Dane, and being intimately familiar with social programs put forward here, I'm familiar with the fact that this isn't a thing that was suddenly conjured up in 1849. It was just the point when it was enshrined in the Constitution before Bismarck was even old enough to grow a handlebar moustache.
With the "Get me out of here" thing, The Independent has footage and audio of it as it happened
.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Yeah, to which you respond “I understand your concern, but if we want to do it, we can pay for it. Have you ever asked that question about military spending?”
And the person usually goes “...huh, no, I didn’t think about it like that.”
You don’t break bad perceptions and years of propaganda via “this will save money.” Because that just leads into either “ok so PROVE it saves money” or “even if it saves money we shouldn’t help lazy people” bullshit arguments.
Cortez has been making the right response, which is “if we can waste $X billion on Y, we can spend $X billion on taking care of our kids and seniors.”
Edited by wisewillow on Dec 2nd 2018 at 5:38:23 AM
Which is a good point and might be useful depending on the audience, but remember, higher military spending usually goes hand in hand with promises that Veterans get better benefits. So, use that argument in front of a bunch of soldiers, and they might not agree with you at all. (though it might be useful during a discussion about military spending that the "better benefits" thing is usually a big fat lie).
Edited by Swanpride on Dec 2nd 2018 at 2:40:28 AM
![]()
That only applies for military spending and veterans, though.
We can still cut spending and outpace Russia several times over. You know how much we spend in comparison to them, right?
(That was rhetorical)
If I remember correctly, several of those are our allies too.
![]()
Edited by AzurePaladin on Dec 2nd 2018 at 5:45:22 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer![]()
You actually don't. US military spending is crazy, even if you remove NASA from the equation. Currently you are not just outspending Russia, but the next five countries under you on the list together. That's why they always attach the "Veteran benefits" promise to higher spending, because that prevents anyone to actually questioning it. It's hard to do without looking like someone who doesn't care for vets. (and yes, I know it's nonsense).
Edited by Swanpride on Dec 2nd 2018 at 2:43:58 AM
Just FYI, I don’t think this is intentional, but you are still coming across as really condescending in explaining to Americans how you should talk to American veterans etc. And a lot of veterans are mad about the infinite spending on tech versus the complete lack of spending for caring for veterans. They aren’t idiots or a monolith.
![]()
![]()
Depends on if Saudi Arabia counts as a US ally. Right now, the top five non-US spenders are the PRC (adversary), Saudi Arabia (depends on your point of view), Russia (adversary), India (adversary, how much depends on relationship with Pakistan) and France (ally).
Edited by math792d on Dec 2nd 2018 at 11:47:01 AM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Russian military spending is also hard to measure directly against US spending because all of it's heavy industries and R&D companies are owned by the state. All of their military equipment and development happens at cost.
Which means in terms of raw dollar amounts they can make seemingly smaller budgets go a hell of a lot further.
And it's less about countering Russia's new supertank and more having to now overhaul a lot of our legacy equipment because Johnny Jihad now has Russian weapons from the early 2000s instead of the 60s.
Oh and almost all of our massive military budget is actually spent on wages for soldiers and contractors. Just things to keep in mind when trying to reduce complex defense spending to raw dollar amounts.
Edited by LeGarcon on Dec 2nd 2018 at 5:48:54 AM
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
It really isn't my intention. I am playing through how those arguments usually work. I am happy if people correct me and make other suggestions. Because so far we kind of sidestepped the question how the Democrats can have a united message. They are kind of split. I mean, the new elected members aren't even in the house and they are already squabbling with each other.
Though those strategical aspects naturally depends on the state in question, too. Deep blue states are another matter. I am thinking more in terms of the swing states. But I am happy to learn a better strategy.
Regarding Military spending...if I remember correctly the order is US/Russia/China. But after this what follows is a string of US allies. You know, UK, France, Germany (not that the Bundeswehr is currently in a good state, but in terms of spending (in total sum, not in percentage of GPD) they are actually in the top ten. Or were the last time I looked it up).
![]()
What's your source? I would have to search for mine and it's later over here….
Us military spending is pretty complex...as I said above, as far as I can tell it includes NASA (and most countries don't have their own space program) and naturally a lot of spending on the standing army and the vets...most countries have neither a standing army that big, nor that many vets because, well, not everyone participated in Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf wars, Irak, Afghanistan and whatever else I am currently forgetting. Still, the US defence spending is pretty high for a country which is (nowadays) living more or less peacefully with its direct neighbours, and which has a long list of allies.
Edited by Swanpride on Dec 2nd 2018 at 2:59:52 AM
Yeah but how much of our Military spending ends up on Von der Leyens outside advisors these days <.<
Honestly, a bit of squabbling is good. You can only have a consensus by laying out all the views, not one handed down from the top. Let them handle it among themselves for a bit and see how they go about it once it's actually in Congress.
"You can reply to this Message!"![]()
These are from SIPRI, working from official documentation and making a rough translation to US dollars.
If you extend the list to a top 10 you get Great Britain, Japan, Germany, South Korea and Brazil, in that order.
Edited by math792d on Dec 2nd 2018 at 12:03:25 PM
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Yeah, arguing “do the right thing because it helps the economy” has basically never worked. Because fiscal conservatives suddenly don’t care about a deficit if it comes from giving massive tax breaks to the rich, spending billions on military, and screwing over minorities.
“Do the right thing BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING” is far more effective. Even some far-right types have been offput by these arguments, like the woman who heard Ocasio-Cortez and went “huh, Ocasio-Cortez says my kids have the right to food and healthcare no matter who I am, that sounds so nice WAIT NO NO SOCIALIST EVIL.”
Exactly this, I admire arguments that are technical and policy focused but they simply are not winners electorally.
People vote with their hearts, not their heads and thus we should push good policy in terms that appeal to the former rather than the latter.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Ah, that explains it, my source was older and Saudi Arabia apparently increased its spending considerably...mm...something to worry about. Interestingly the spending in Russia fell...I wonder why….
Thanks for the link....
Well, that was my thinking. If they would vote with the heads, they would be able to do the math and know that tax cuts will never really help them, while paying the same taxes by better social services will. The Republicans have used the deficit for decades as an excuse to cut social spending, and it not only has worked, it still seems to work outside of the deep blue states. I want to be optimistic and believe that the gig is up now, but hell, the Tories have been in power for how long in the UK and the people over here in Germany are readily vote for their own demise by going for the Af D even thought they have a manifest which is neoliberalism on steroids. So maybe it is time to fight against the narrative and say: No this WON'T destroy our economy, quite the opposite, it will help it.
Edited by Swanpride on Dec 2nd 2018 at 3:09:56 AM

Even if it was a 100% natural death, sped along by job related stress, there would be conspiracies that would make the JFK assassination look like the plot of a YA novel.
Frankly, I think it would be healthiest for American democracy if Trump were to lose (the more decisively, the better) the 2020 election. As opposed to a policy (especially foreign perspective) health POV, where everything is better off the sooner Trump leaves office.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.