# Where do you think the USA could improve?



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2018)

For me the biggest issue is the voting system. We use first past the post, which means that over time the voting system degenerated into a 2 party system. We need to fix that.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 15, 2018)

1. Universal suffrage needs to be removed. Rome had it right; before you can vote you need to join the military for X amount of years and B. be a NET tax payer. If we don't do this then we have nothing stopping people just voting for more "free stuff"

2. Get rid of this retarded 2 party system. The problem with this system is at it is rare that you can even agree with either side even 50% of the time so you end up voting for a lot of bad with a bit of good. (your point of view)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Get rid of the damn welfare state/UBI etc. People need to take ownership of their lives.


----------



## raphamotta (Jan 15, 2018)

The president


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2018)

Elections (e.g. gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc.)
Healthcare
Income inequality
Immigration


----------



## GameSystem (Jan 15, 2018)

http://reports.weforum.org/global-c...017-2018/countryeconomy-profiles/#economy=USA

Everything we are not #1 at.


----------



## cracker (Jan 15, 2018)

"Citizens United"! If legitimate bribes were taken away then the regressiveness of the US reps would create a domino effect where they would actually care about the people again. The reps that just care about the money would start exiting their offices for public sector jobs that would pay them better provide openings for others that do care about their constituents.

@CallmeBerto The corporations get a hell of a lot more in wellfare than individuals get due to the huge fallacy that is trickle-down economics.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2018)

Forcing people to take over their own lives and not letting the federal government take from the workers and give to the poor is a good start.

Not saying giving to the poor is bad, but the federal government forcing it makes it very undesirable and unappreciated.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 15, 2018)

@cracker - "trickle-down economics" is no where near prefect however giving money to the poor all it does is make more poor people. When you subsidize something you get more of it.


----------



## TheRedfox (Jan 15, 2018)

stop taking capitalism too far; you guys need some socialism.
get infrastructure; healthcare and such in gov hands again, capitalist competition with private companies isn't going to improve service

also get rid of these death machines called guns


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2018)

TheRedfox said:


> stop taking capitalism too far; you guys need some socialism.
> get infrastructure; healthcare and such in gov hands again, capitalist competition with private companies isn't going to improve service
> 
> also get rid of these death machines called guns


You don't live in the United States so you have no idea what we are going through right now.

We don't need socialism because the free market and capitalism _work_. The socialists of the eighteenth century wanted the free market to be a thing so it could fail, and then they could come in with Socialism. Well, it didn't, and we don't need it. It was Plan B that was never used because Plan A was the solution.

Just a history lesson for you.


----------



## TheRedfox (Jan 15, 2018)

blujay said:


> You don't live in the United States so you have no idea what we are going through right now.
> 
> We don't need socialism because the free market and capitalism _work_. The socialists of the eighteenth century wanted the free market to be a thing so it could fail, and then they could come in with Socialism. Well, it didn't, and we don't need it. It was Plan B that was never used because Plan A was the solution.
> 
> Just a history lesson for you.



don't smoke propaganda, drugs are bad for ya mkay?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2018)

TheRedfox said:


> don't smoke propaganda, drugs are bad for ya mkay?


Whether I am wrong or right actually doesn't matter, the problem is that you are telling us that one way is better than what we have when you haven't experienced it first hand


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 15, 2018)

blujay said:


> Whether I am wrong or right actually doesn't matter, the problem is that you are telling us that one way is better than what we have when you haven't experienced it first hand



Just ignore him; he is trolling.


----------



## cracker (Jan 15, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @cracker - "trickle-down economics" is no where near prefect however giving money to the poor all it does is make more poor people. When you subsidize something you get more of it.



Trickle-down economics has been a proven failure many times around. The rich/corporations pocket the money or inflate their own stock. Trickle-up economics have always been proven to work because the people have to spend it right away on things they need - which pushes the economy. What the government should do is quit giving huge corporations tax breaks and use that money to create long-term jobs programs for the people that are able-bodied/-minded then it's a win/win.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2018)

cracker said:


> Trickle-down economics has been a proven failure many times around. The rich/corporations pocket the money or inflate their own stock. Trickle-up economics have always been proven to work because the people have to spend it right away on things they need - which pushes the economy. What the government should do is quit giving huge corporations tax breaks and use that money to create long-term jobs programs for the people that are able-bodied/-minded then it's a win/win.


Until the money those people get is used for worthless things like alcohol or iPhones, and then they ask for more money.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jan 15, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @cracker - "trickle-down economics" is no where near prefect however giving money to the poor all it does is make more poor people. When you subsidize something you get more of it.


Basic human rights like healthcare is not idiots wanting free stuff. Idiots wanting free stuff is only a valid argument in a country where people already have the rights of a civilized country, i.e. France, or Scandinavia. This does not apply to the US where people die on the floor near hospitals after being kicked out, or people dying because of the butchery healthcare is there.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jan 15, 2018)

Less rotten democracy

And by physically removing California. 
Free helicopter rides would help too.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TheRedfox said:


> you guys need some socialism.


And you need to be less stupid.


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jan 15, 2018)

I'm America, don't remove Trump, but don't elect him again. If we remove him we get asshat Pence, and that would spell HUGE trouble. He's textbook Christain (not a bad thing, just need to add in... Unless...) and he would really fight back against gay marriage, among other things that go against biblical teaching.

So leave the orange asshole in office, but after he's out, but that crooked man baby in jail. Bring Obama back (Kidding because I know he already ran his two terms   )


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2018)

cracker said:


> Trickle-down economics has been a proven failure many times around. The rich/corporations pocket the money or inflate their own stock. Trickle-up economics have always been proven to work because the people have to spend it right away on things they need - which pushes the economy. What the government should do is quit giving huge corporations tax breaks and use that money to create long-term jobs programs for the people that are able-bodied/-minded then it's a win/win.



Absolutely! Our corporations already rule the market and easily compete on a global scale!

(not)


----------



## cracker (Jan 16, 2018)

blujay said:


> Until the money those people get is used for worthless things like alcohol or iPhones, and then they ask for more money.



Did you even read what I said? The people would be working for pay.

If people are making a living then it is no one's business what it is spent on. Also, having a phone is pretty necessary and is a catch 22 when it comes to poor people trying to get a job or to retain employment. Landlines cost about the same as a Straight Talk, etc. plan now.

Once again, the blame is put on the poorest people while the rich get a pass because they might just trickle down on everyone else (they do but in a different way). Since the corporate/rich welfare is hidden away as tax cuts this is the best way to show what is happening:





Also, more burden is put onto social welfare programs by corporations by creating class of the working poor. Walmart has been the face of this due to the amount of workers it employs and the wages they pay. The majority of those on welfare programs are actually employed and some hold multiple jobs that aren't even able to make ends meet.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Thirty3Three said:


> I'm America, don't remove Trump, but don't elect him again. If we remove him we get asshat Pence, and that would spell HUGE trouble. He's textbook Christain (not a bad thing, just need to add in... Unless...) and he would really fight back against gay marriage, among other things that go against biblical teaching.
> 
> So leave the orange asshole in office, but after he's out, but that crooked man baby in jail. Bring Obama back (Kidding because I know he already ran his two terms   )



I agree with you on Pence but the trade-off of having someone stable in control is evergrowing.

Obama wasn't the greatest. He did some good things (didn't go far enough on healthcare), but he also did a lot of shitty things like upping NSA spying, upping unilateral strikes on foreign countries under the Patriot Act via drones, let banks off the hook, TPP, etc. He just did it in a more charismatic way and (sometimes) under the radar.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Jan 16, 2018)

I'm gonna change the topic of the conversation a bit and say I'm not a fan of the US's approach to international relations, specifically in things like the Iraq war. We need to strengthen security inside our borders, not mess with those outside. In Iraq and Afghanistan we bit off more than we could chew and it was a mess. 

I also think we need tax increases and spending cuts, our debt is a mess. We're paying off so much interest already, and we still continue to borrow. Doesn't make much sense mathematically. 

Also, we need to stop encouraging the President to say dumb things on twitter. It just makes us hate each other more.


----------



## Thirty3Three (Jan 16, 2018)

cracker said:


> Did you even read what I said? The people would be working for pay.
> 
> If people are making a living then it is no one's business what it is spent on. Also, having a phone is pretty necessary and is a catch 22 when it comes to poor people trying to get a job or to retain employment. Landlines cost about the same as a Straight Talk, etc. plan now.
> 
> ...



IDK I just feel like Pence would do FAR more harm, as he's infinitely more professional and incredibly more well-spoken, and that's terrifying. Especially when still, a lot of the people on this planet follow Biblical teachings to the key (again, I don't mean anything rude by this to those who are religious, here!).

He wasn't the greatest, I know. He did _some_ awesome things though, which made me really happy. And on a non-political note, he's a REALLY good guy, who _does_ at least seem to understand the people. How about another Reagan?


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 17, 2018)

something that annoys me is americans who think Canada is just a part of USA


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

blujay said:


> Until the money those people get is used for worthless things like alcohol or iPhones, and then they ask for more money.


May I ask why you see iPhones as worthless to a homeless person? Most jobs require you to have some form of constantly reachable communication, and last-gen iPhones are pretty dang cheap with a contract on most networks

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



CallmeBerto said:


> Get rid of the damn welfare state/UBI etc. People need to take ownership of their lives.


I get the idea you didn't actually watch the video I linked last time this came up


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> May I ask why you see iPhones as worthless to a homeless person? Most jobs require you to have some form of constantly reachable communication, and last-gen iPhones are pretty dang cheap with a contract on most networks
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




I did I just don't agree. There are not an infinite source of resources that we can just simply give people money, fiod, water, health care etc. just for existing. Since resources are finite how do we ration them out? We do this via those who produce more then others ago money.

We already knows what happens when we give people money for doing nothing we get more of them.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jan 17, 2018)

Stop the struggle from within, is our huge weakness that ruins things. Crime, economy, law, other stuff.


----------



## 330 (Jan 17, 2018)

I find the costs of college education and healthcare without insurance to be extremely disturbing.


----------



## Stepperer (Jan 17, 2018)

I think the "mind your own business" way is the best way of improvement for USA as a country


----------



## TheRedfox (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> We already knows what happens when we give people money for doing nothing we get more of them.



Xenophobic people like you are the reason stuff like healthcare there won't improve.
The gov should take care of people in their basic needs(shelter; education; food; healthcare), only then they can develop themselves and eventually get a job. Nearly noone wants to be jobless and live off welfare, give them chances! But you won't find any chances in a country where you literally get kicked out of a hospital to just die, only because you don't have money at that moment.


----------



## 330 (Jan 17, 2018)

TheRedfox said:


> Xenophobic people like you are the reason stuff like healthcare there won't improve.


I'm sure that people like you that have to put racism everywhere are much better instead. Where has he written anything about race? Can you really say that 100% of the people requesting government assistance actually need it?
Do you even know that you can buy soda and live lobsters out of stamps? How is that necessary or a race-driven issue?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> I did I just don't agree. There are not an infinite source of resources that we can just simply give people money, fiod, water, health care etc. just for existing. Since resources are finite how do we ration them out? We do this via those who produce more then others ago money.
> 
> We already knows what happens when we give people money for doing nothing we get more of them.


How is that fair to people who are either born into wealth or poverty?

And what do you mean "we get more of them"?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



330 said:


> Do you even know that you can buy soda and live lobsters out of stamps? How is that necessary or a race-driven issue?


Soda is very cheap and easy for welfare programs to reimburse. I'd bet my right hand that the live lobster thing only applies to east coast states where stuff like that is literally part of the base level economy

On top of that, I find the whole "poors shouldn't be allowed to have nice things" mentality kind of disturbing and borderline hateful, if not uneducated and lacking empathy


----------



## TheRedfox (Jan 17, 2018)

330 said:


> I'm sure that people like you that have to put racism everywhere are much better instead. Where has he written anything about race? Can you really say that 100% of the people requesting government assistance actually need it?
> Do you even know that you can buy soda and live lobsters out of stamps? How is that necessary or a race-driven issue?



I never talked about racism; but just pointed out the hate Berto is showing to foreign immigrants("we get more of them."). I think he watched a bit too much of Fox news and actually thinks you get raped on street in Sweden >_>


----------



## 330 (Jan 17, 2018)

TheRedfox said:


> I never talked about racism; but just pointed out the hate Berto is showing to foreign immigrants("we get more of them."). I think he watched a bit too much of Fox news and actually thinks you get raped on street in Sweden >_>


He was obviously talking about people requesting government aid, not immigrants.


----------



## J-Machine (Jan 17, 2018)

330 said:


> I'm sure that people like you that have to put racism everywhere are much better instead. Where has he written anything about race? Can you really say that 100% of the people requesting government assistance actually need it?
> Do you even know that you can buy soda and live lobsters out of stamps? How is that necessary or a race-driven issue?


just because they can get lobster does not mean they will but as a side note... lobster is $6 per pound here and beef is $8 and chicken is $10.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

330 said:


> He was obviously talking about people requesting government aid, not immigrants.


You can't just request government aid, you have to meet some pretty stringent criteria to qualify for it. It could really afford to loosen up, actually


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How is that fair to people who are either born into wealth or poverty?
> 
> And what do you mean "we get more of them"?



Life isn't fair. Some people are born with everything and some are born into nothing. That really doesn't matter what really matters is class mobility. Example lets say someone is born poor then if this person works hard or is just really luck and ends up in middle class or rich then I see no issue with it. During most of out lives we tend to move from different classes. I'm sure most of us were poor when we were in our teens however after college or a a trade school or whatever we moved to middle class. After a few decades if we work hard we could end up in the upper middle or lower rich etc. A lot of people when they retire go back to middle or lower middle class.

Wealth Inequality is in fact a good thing as it shows how rich a nation is. If everyone had the same amount of money then in that case everyone is poor.

On the "we get more of them" a good example would be the single motherhood problem. When the welfare state grew what happened? More single mothers not less. The reason for this is that they knew they ALWAYS had a safety neat agro there were no real consequences for their actions. In fact there are many cases where having a welfare state hurt people a lot more then help. The fear of starvation is a great motivator to do something.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Wealth Inequality is in fact a good thing as it shows how rich a nation is. If everyone had the same amount of money then in that case everyone is poor.


Not always. Some countries have extremely high GDP per capita, yet have poor wealth distribution where 80% of the population is making less then 2 dollars a day. This is where everyone doesn't have the same money and the majority are poor.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Life isn't fair. Some people are born with everything and some are born into nothing. That really doesn't matter what really matters is class mobility. Example lets say someone is born poor then if this person works hard or is just really luck and ends up in middle class or rich then I see no issue with it. During most of out lives we tend to move from different classes. I'm sure most of us were poor when we were in our teens however after college or a a trade school or whatever we moved to middle class. After a few decades if we work hard we could end up in the upper middle or lower rich etc. A lot of people when they retire go back to middle or lower middle class.


That's great and all but without some sort of foothold, that's how you get slums where people are funneled into low-cost housing targeted specifically to put them in low-income neighborhoods, so that there's virtually no way to break the cycle. There is a very large portion of our nation for which it simply isn't feasible for someone to "just put in some hard work" and magically move up a class, most of the poverty class put in exhausting work on a daily basis and either earn just enough to get by or finally start to earn too much to keep their welfare benefits and get the feet knocked out from under them.



> Wealth Inequality is in fact a good thing as it shows how rich a nation is. If everyone had the same amount of money then in that case everyone is poor.


http://www.visualcapitalist.com/wealth-inequality-problem-one-chart/
You can't ACTUALLY believe that, can you?... obviously there should be classes, but I don't think you actually have a grasp on just HOW MUCH money the richest earners in this nation have compared to the lowest



> On the "we get more of them" a good example would be the single motherhood problem. When the welfare state grew what happened? More single mothers not less. The reason for this is that they knew they ALWAYS had a safety neat agro there were no real consequences for their actions. In fact there are many cases where having a welfare state hurt people a lot more then help. The fear of starvation is a great motivator to do something.


That's due in part to the fact that divorce is now more widely accepted, which I dare say is a positive thing because that indicates that more women are discovering that there is an out to abusive relationships. Will there always be people who take advantage of a welfare system? Yes. Is our welfare system broken? Yes, but not for the reasons that you think it is.

And Jesus Fuck "The fear of starvation is a great motivator to do something" is not a sentence I EVER want to hear come out of anyone's mouth ever


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

TheRedfox said:


> stop taking capitalism too far; you guys need some socialism.
> get infrastructure; healthcare and such in gov hands again, capitalist competition with private companies isn't going to improve service
> 
> also get rid of these death machines called guns


there's always that one commie


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 17, 2018)

(from a uk standpoint, idk how much of this mirrors over to America, but I would imagine it isn't too different)
while I do think the welfare system has its flaws, from a UK perspective healthcare seems like a basic right for major/life threatening issues, that said I do feel like corporations have corrupted the system to the point were welfare is necessary, by creating laws and taxes designed to actively discourage and price individuals out of the market, mega corporations have gained a monopoly over peoples lives, I have a friend who used to run an independent game store and he said he witnessed the change and how it was instigated by big chains, and the things that looked like they were designed to improve consumer rights were effectively just designed to majorly effect small/independent businesses but be insignificant to big chains

there was even a point where he received a letter from a major chain effectively saying that they were planning to run new sales tactic and it was his last chance to join them before he would pretty much be priced out of the game, this ended up being the case and it was in the news at the time that chains were actively planning to sell at a small loss for a year to speed up the loss of independent stores

many people often claim big business always good business, but I would argue independent small businesses drive real positive change, pandering to mega corps by penalising smaller business is where most of the western world went wrong imo, where politicians will accept backhanders to introduce a law that they know will negatively effect the independent stores and customers in the long run, not to mention having local communities only be able to shop at businesses that don't pay tax or pay tiny amounts of tax compared to what a small independent should would be expected to pay to compete for the same customers, this is probably the biggest problem to me and is what really needs to be changed to encourage people to be able to grow for themselves and bring about their own better future on their own terms and not becoming a slave to a mega corp or scraping on welfare with no optimism of making something for themselves


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> there's always that one commie


You know as well as I do that socialism =/= communism, stop playing the dumb fearmongerer. It doesn't look good when you spent as much time as you did chewing people out for doing the same in the net neutrality thread.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You know as well as I do that socialism =/= communism, stop playing the dumb fearmongerer. It doesn't look good when you spent as much time as you did chewing people out for doing the same in the net neutrality thread.


I make one joke and the kid flips his shit at me. Pipe down.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

remove parties
remove lobbying (it's literally just bribery at this point regardless of the original intent)
candidates can't campaign with their own money or donations, they are given a set budget and must use that and only that
veterans need more benefits fucking hell we treat them worse than our fucking homeless
illegal immigrants should work to earn their citizenship. the waiting period shit's dumb. People who are clearly able to work and stimulate the economy should be rewarded for doing so with citizenship. Let people in on trials, and if they just mooch, kick em out.

let commiefornia split into commiefornia and new california.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> remove parties
> remove lobbying (it's literally just bribery at this point regardless of the original intent)
> candidates can't campaign with their own money or donations, they are given a set budget and must use that and only that
> veterans need more benefits fucking hell we treat them worse than our fucking homeless
> ...


I agree with most of this other than "veterans need more benefits fucking hell we treat them worse than our fucking homeless" (I'm taking the "commiefornia" thing as the joke it is), NOT because I don't believe that veterans shouldn't get benefits, but because I think that ALL homeless people should get benefits, which will in turn benefit homeless veterans (which make up a not insignificant portion)


----------



## SG854 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Life isn't fair. Some people are born with everything and some are born into nothing. That really doesn't matter what really matters is class mobility. Example lets say someone is born poor then if this person works hard or is just really luck and ends up in middle class or rich then I see no issue with it. Wealth Inequality is in fact a good thing as it shows how rich a nation is. If everyone had the same amount of money then in that case everyone is poor.


Using 2015 numbers

*Nigeria*
Real GDP per capita= $4,353

*Pakistan*
Real GDP per capita=$4,190

*Honduras*
Real GDP per capita=$4,146

All have same GDP per capita, so all should have similar living standards right? Not really.

*Nigeria* 80% of population lives in extreme poverty of less then 2 dallar's a day.

*Pakistan* its 60%

*Honduras* its 33%

Wealth inequality here for Nigeria is not a good thing. It may show how rich a nation is, but nothing about the well being of its people.
So a more equal wealth distribution is needed.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I agree with most of this other than "veterans need more benefits fucking hell we treat them worse than our fucking homeless" (I'm taking the "commiefornia" thing as the joke it is), NOT because I don't believe that veterans shouldn't get benefits, but because I think that ALL homeless people should get benefits, which will in turn benefit homeless veterans (which make up a not insignificant portion)


Fuck no, veterans deserve more benefits. Homeless do too, but veterans especially. Veterans get shafted with underfunded programs and with the homeless veterans in my state, I'm very passionate about them getting support. Homeless people in general need help, but people who have put their lives on the line to come back to jack fucking shit and a country that barely seems to care about them deserve more, because they've given so fucking much.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 17, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Fuck no, veterans deserve more benefits. Homeless do too, but veterans especially. Veterans get shafted with underfunded programs and with the homeless veterans in my state, I'm very passionate about them getting support. Homeless people in general need help, but people who have put their lives on the line to come back to jack fucking shit and a country that barely seems to care about them deserve more, because they've given so fucking much.


It doesn't help that Veterans get labeled as killers and spit on, even vets in wheel chairs get spit on, example the Vietnam war.
There were these to Sailor Vietnam vets that were stabbed by and angry war protester.

Also consider that fact that in past wars their were some that were forced to fight by the draft against their will. Even after they protested the draft.
If you deny the draft then you have a chance of going to jail, and having the reputation of a man who doesn't fight in prison will make you a perfect canididate for prison rape where you can get aids. All this because you refused to fight in a war you don't believe in.

Suicide rates for vets are extremely high. Pick any 1 year, you have more vets committing suicide in 1 year, than have died in combat in Afghanistan in all the years combined. We really don't take care of the vets.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

SG854 said:


> It doesn't help that Veterans get labeled as killers and spit on, even vets in wheel chairs get spit on, example the Vietnam war.
> There were these to Sailor Vietnam vets that were stabbed by and angry war protester.
> 
> Also consider that fact that in past wars their were some that were forced to fight by the draft against their will. Even after they protested the draft.
> ...


This is precisely why I will never join the military. I have great respect for those who do, and I think we need to do everything we can to support them when they come home broken and battered, but I could never personally fight a war I do not believe in. Likewise, drafts should never be a thing, as they force people into fighting for wars they don't believe in and break up homes.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 17, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> This is precisely why I will never join the military. I have great respect for those who do, and I think we need to do everything we can to support them when they come home broken and battered, but I could never personally fight a war I do not believe in. Likewise, drafts should never be a thing, as they force people into fighting for wars they don't believe in and break up homes.


I actually was thinking of making a political thread about the topic of the draft, and it's unconstitutionality. 
Its in violation of the 14th amendments equal protection clause (same amendment that got blacks the right to vote during the civil rights movement) because it discriminates based on gender.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MaverickWellington said:


> This is precisely why I will never join the military. I have great respect for those who do, and I think we need to do everything we can to support them when they come home broken and battered, but I could never personally fight a war I do not believe in. Likewise, drafts should never be a thing, as they force people into fighting for wars they don't believe in and break up homes.


You can claim to be a conscientious objector to avoid fighting in the war, but good luck fighting that in court without a religious reason and having the possibility of loosing your job.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

@SG854 

Anything unchecked can be twisted to shit like you pointed out. While I use the term "free market" that is kinda of a misnomer as markets do need governments for the very reasons you stated.

@TotalInsanity4 

I actually do believe "Wealth Inequality" is in fact a good thing; unless taken to the extreme like SG584 pointed out.


The fear of starvation is a great motivator to do something YES YES it would solve the problem if people looked into themselves to solve their damn problems instead of blaming everyone else. Stop paying losers to be losers.

On divorce, no fault divorce has destroyed the family. 70% of divorces are filed by women. Reason? just fell out of love. If the person is abusive yeah I can agree but that is not the norm.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I actually was thinking of making a political thread about the topic of the draft, and it's unconstitutionality.
> Its in violation of the 14th amendments equal protection clause (same amendment that got blacks the right to vote during the civil rights movement) because it discriminates based on gender.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


The draft is a really hard topic to handle. On one hand, it breaks up homes and puts people through hell if they actually go to war, but on the other, it creates a safety net for emergency deployments should someone try to invade the US homeland.

There's no real ideal solution. An unmanned military would be open to hacking or EMPs if not properly shielded, a military with no draft at all would leave us understaffed in the event of a serious attack on the United States, and mandated service would just be fucking unreasonable.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> I actually do believe "Wealth Inequality" is in fact a good thing; unless taken to the extreme like SG584 pointed out.


Our country is very quickly entering that reality. Obviously not to the same extreme, but we're getting to the point where the middle class is effectively drying up because there is such a huge divide between the top 1% of earners and full time minimum wage employees.



> The fear of starvation is a great motivator to do something YES YES it would solve the problem if people looked into themselves to solve their damn problems instead of blaming everyone else. Stop paying losers to be losers.


Imagine how many more innovative small businesses (or inventors, or well-paid factory workers, or accountants, or people with a college degree, or [insert literally any job a homeless person struggling to get by can't feasibly get] we could have if we removed the barrier of hunger from their daily lives. You should not literally threaten a person with death merely because they were born at or are currently at a disadvantage.


> On divorce, no fault divorce has destroyed the family. 70% of divorces are filed by women. Reason? just fell out of love. If the person is abusive yeah I can agree but that is not the norm.


I'd love to see a statistic on the whole "falling out of love" thing


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Our country is very quickly entering that reality. Obviously not to the same extreme, but we're getting to the point where the middle class is effectively drying up because there is such a huge divide between the top 1% of earners and full time minimum wage employees.
> 
> 
> Imagine how many more innovative small businesses (or inventors, or well-paid factory workers, or accountants, or people with a college degree, or [insert literally any job a homeless person struggling to get by can't feasibly get] we could have if we removed the barrier of hunger from their daily lives. You should not literally threaten a person with death merely because they were born at or are currently at a disadvantage.
> ...


Did you know that 95% of statistics are made up on the spot and the rest are just assumed?


----------



## HamBone41801 (Jan 17, 2018)

lets see... The american government is STILL supporting the Salvation Army.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 17, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> The draft is a really hard topic to handle. On one hand, it breaks up homes and puts people through hell if they actually go to war, but on the other, it creates a safety net for emergency deployments should someone try to invade the US homeland.
> 
> There's no real ideal solution. An unmanned military would be open to hacking or EMPs if not properly shielded, a military with no draft at all would leave us understaffed in the event of a serious attack on the United States, and mandated service would just be fucking unreasonable.


That is exactly why its difficult. People are scared for their lives and want safety, so they are willing to send others to battle so that they can feel safe.

Its unfortunate that being born male makes you subject to the draft. And you're placed with a moral dilemma that women don't have to face. Refuse to fight in war and you'll be subject to public criticism, called a pansy, and judged based on your willingness to fight. Just look at Bill Clinton and Dan Quayle, they were judged based on their willingness to fight in war. Something that was not expected of female politicians at the time.

They label vets as Hero's, so they wont feel as bad sending males to war, something that sometimes is necessary, and to cover the pain they have to go through so they wont feel as bad having a need to do this. The word Hero comes from the Greek word Serow, which is where you get words like slave and servant. And thats what essentially a Hero is, to be used as fodder to protect someone else that is more important, instead of that person going into direct combat themselves because they life is more important and we need to keep them alive, or used so that someone else profits at their expense.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> lets see... The american government is STILL supporting the Salvation Army.


While continually attempting to cut support from Planned Parenthood, yeah


----------



## HamBone41801 (Jan 17, 2018)

SG854 said:


> That is exactly why its difficult. People are scared for their lives and want safety, so they are willing to send others to battle so that they can feel safe.
> 
> Its unfortunate that being born male makes you subject to the draft. And you're placed with a moral dilemma that women don't have to face. Refuse to fight in war and you'll be subject to public criticism, called a pansy, and judged based on your willingness to fight. Just look at Bill Clinton and Dan Quayle, they were judged based on their willingness to fight in war. Something that was not expected of female politicians at the time.
> 
> They label vets as Hero's, so they wont feel as bad sending males to war, something that sometimes is necessary, and to cover the pain they have to go through so they wont feel as bad having a need to do this. The word Hero comes from the Greek word Serow, which is where you get words like slave and servant. And thats what essentially a Hero is, to be used as fodder to protect someone else that is more important, instead of that person going into direct combat themselves because we need to keep them alive, or used so that someone else profits at their expense.


didn't they change that last year or something? I was pretty sure women could be drafted now. eh. It doesn't affect me. I don't think I'm eligible.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> didn't they change that last year or something? I was pretty sure women could be drafted now. eh. It doesn't affect me. I don't think I'm eligible.


No, females can voluntarily enter the military, but they won't be drafted if one comes up


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> didn't they change that last year or something? I was pretty sure women could be drafted now. eh. It doesn't affect me. I don't think I'm eligible.


I think they did, yeah. IMO that's just stupid to begin with. I'm gonna get flak for saying this but I don't think women should be serving in the military. As awful as it sounds to say that they should be staying at home taking care of the family, it's the truth. A mother figure is important for the household, and as the people who keep the human race populated they should be protected, instead of sent on the line.


----------



## HamBone41801 (Jan 17, 2018)

yea... no.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I think they did, yeah. IMO that's just stupid to begin with. I'm gonna get flak for saying this but I don't think women should be serving in the military. As awful as it sounds to say that they should be staying at home taking care of the family, it's the truth. A mother figure is important for the household, and as the people who keep the human race populated they should be protected, instead of sent on the line.


To start off - I don't agree with the draft in the first place. It's awful, and it violates the rights of people who don't agree with the war. I believe that there will _always_ be enough people to draw from that are patriotic enough and care enough about an issue to enroll themselves into service if need be, and if not, it's clearly not a war worth fighting.

THAT SAID, while there is a draft and supposing ANYONE can be drafted, there needs to be an exception that says that only one adult per household may be drafted, be it the mother, father, adult children, or small organized community unit (say, four or so). That way, there will always be someone there to take care of the family/social unit


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> To start off - I don't agree with the draft in the first place. It's awful, and it violates the rights of people who don't agree with the war. I believe that there will _always_ be enough people to draw from that are patriotic enough and care enough about an issue to enroll themselves into service if need be, and if not, it's clearly not a war worth fighting.
> 
> THAT SAID, while there is a draft and supposing ANYONE can be drafted, there needs to be an exception that says that only one adult per household may be drafted, be it the mother, father, adult children, or small organized community unit (say, four or so). That way, there will always be someone there to take care of the family/social unit


That doesn't fix the problem of broken homes and causing grief and distress when the high chance of losing them in war happens. It just minimizes it to one person.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Like I said this is an awful issue because there's absolutely no solution that solves the problem without creating ten more. I want the draft gone for good, but that comes with it's own issues.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> That doesn't fix the problem of broken homes and causing grief and distress when the high chance of losing them in war happens. It just minimizes it to one person.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Like I said this is an awful issue because there's absolutely no solution that solves the problem without creating ten more. I want the draft gone for good, but that comes with it's own issues.


No I totally agree with you overall, the draft is awful, but what I'm saying is that this way there IS someone to take care of people while the other is away, or God forbid killed in the line of duty. This way, however, the person who is fighting is the one who wants to most


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

Ignore my comment "70% of divorces are filed by women. Reason? just fell out of love." I can't find my sources on this.

As for the US military there are plenty of non combat roles a women can do. But yeah get them out of the front lines they are just a liability.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Ignore my comment "70% of divorces are filed by women. Reason? just fell out of love." I can't find my sources on this.


For a source to contradict that (not being petty, I swear, I'm trying to be informative):


			
				wevorce said:
			
		

> When looked at separately, men and women were divided on what they saw as the reasons for their divorces. Women overwhelmingly said they made the decision to divorce because of abuse issues with a response rate of 48 percent. But 23 percent of men said the reasons they divorced were based on money. Another 22 percent of men cited sex as the reason for the divorce.


https://www.wevorce.com/blog/why-americans-divorce/


----------



## HamBone41801 (Jan 17, 2018)

please just stop saying words. neither of you are doing yourselves any favors.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> please just stop saying words. neither of you are doing yourselves and favors.


Sexism, amiright


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> please just stop saying words. neither of you are doing yourselves any favors.



We are trying to have an adult conversation here.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> We are trying to have an adult conversation here.


He has a point, by saying "women shouldn't be on the front lines because they're a liability", especially without a supporting claim, you're kind of tanking any good will you could have towards anyone except people who agree with you (which is kind of contradictory to a debate setting)


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He has a point, by saying "women shouldn't be on the front lines because they're a liability", especially without a supporting claim, you're kind of tanking any good will you could have towards anyone except people who agree with you (which is kind of contradictory to a debate setting)




It's the truth though. The average women is MUCH weaker then the average man. Why would you add a women to a team of men who is just going to slow you down? On the other hand if you create an all women team you will need to spend extra money to get them to the same level (if possible) as an all male team. The third option is to not spend anymore on them as the average male team but at that point you are sending out to die. 

idk what to tell him Mother Nature has internalized misogyny.


----------



## Polopop123 (Jan 17, 2018)

They need to set up the Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People’s Safety


----------



## HamBone41801 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> We are trying to have an adult conversation here.


then please, continue to be sexist


CallmeBerto said:


> It's the truth though. The average women is MUCH weaker then the average man. Why would you add a women to a team of men who is just going to slow you down? On the other hand if you create an all women team you will need to spend extra money to get them to the same level (if possible) as an all male team. The third option is to not spend anymore on them as the average male team but at that point you are sending out to die.
> 
> idk what to tell him Mother Nature has internalized misogyny.



You seem to under the impression that war is one big mixed-martial arts competition. We have guns now. I seriously doubt women have a harder time using guns than men.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> It's the truth though. The average women is MUCH weaker then the average man. Why would you add a women to a team of men who is just going to slow you down? On the other hand if you create an all women team you will need to spend extra money to get them to the same level (if possible) as an all male team. The third option is to not spend anymore on them as the average male team but at that point you are sending out to die.
> 
> idk what to tell him Mother Nature has internalized misogyny.


The average woman is also more agile, though. If we're talking purely about usefulness, I'd definitely rather have at least one person in my unit that can get from point a to point b as quickly as possible, given more obstacles 

Plus the "average woman" also doesn't typically focus on deadlifting 200 pounds because social norms typically have them focusing on beauty, but with exercise many definitely are capable of it


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jan 17, 2018)

Currently, it's set up so that the poor stay poor and the rich get richer. Sure, there are exceptions, but when you're working 60 hours a week just to stay alive it's almost impossible to break out of poverty.

Many people accept this because they believe they'll, one day, be on top, knowing their chances are small.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 17, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> then please, continue to be sexist
> 
> 
> You seem to under the impression that war is one big mixed-martial arts competition. We have guns now. I seriously doubt women have a harder time using guns than men.


It's not about guns, it's the psychology and the physical nature of it. Women are not built the same as men are physically on average, and their standards for hygine are also different. The psychological damage they'd be enduring would be effectively stronger than what the men have to handle. On top of that, given that women are biologically geared towards stronger emotions than men, they will be hit much, much fucking harder from shellshock, loss, and so on. This isn't some sexist shit like a lot of people want you to believe. This is something that's focusing on legitimate biological and psychological studies.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/09/women-war.aspx
http://time.com/3927266/women-war/

Can women be soldiers? Of course. Will it be harder for them? Of course. To call this "sexist" is dishonest and to dismiss these worries and criticisms with "they can just use guns too!" just muddies the debate and doesn't do anyone any justice.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

@HamBone41801 "weapons" are a force multiplier. A women with a gun is going to be less useful then a man with a gun (all things equal)

@TotalInsanity4 - I wouldn't. A man being physically strong is his "social norms" I rather have a strong man on my side then some "agile" women. What if you get shot and you need to relay on someone to drag you away? The males on your team are going to do that much better and faster then the average women.


----------



## HamBone41801 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @HamBone41801 "weapons" are a force multiplier. A women with a gun is going to be less useful then a man with a gun (all things equal)
> 
> @TotalInsanity4 - I wouldn't. A man being physically strong is his "social norms" I rather have a strong man on my side then some "agile" women. What if you get shot and you need to relay on someone to drag you away? The males on your team are going to do that much better and faster then the average women.


No, guns are not a multiplier. A guns effectiveness does not increase based on what you can bench, it depends on if you received proper training. That is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @HamBone41801 "weapons" are a force multiplier. A women with a gun is going to be less useful then a man with a gun (all things equal)


I fail to see how a firearm requires any prerequisites other than the physical strength of lifting it/overcoming recoil, and the psychological ability to pull the trigger. Having shot rifles for sport on multiple occasions before, I'd say that the cold-steel murder device (because really, that's what they are) doesn't care much about the gender if the person holding it



> @TotalInsanity4 - I wouldn't. A man being physically strong is his "social norms" I rather have a strong man on my side then some "agile" women. What if you get shot and you need to relay on someone to drag you away? The males on your team are going to do that much better and faster then the average women.


There's no issue here as long as everyone who enlists is able to pass a health and strength check. I don't think there's anyone out there who are trying to argue that shouldn't be the case


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

HamBone41801 said:


> No, guns are not a multiplier. A guns effectiveness does not increase based on what you can bench, it depends on if you received proper training. That is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.



Let me clarify a bit. A man's and women's brains are DIFFERENT they react to things DIFFERENTLY. Example a women's brain can't handle stress as well as a man. When you are in a life to death situation a women is going to go into panic mode wayy before a man does.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 17, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Let me clarify a bit. A man's and women's brains are DIFFERENT they react to things DIFFERENTLY. Example a women's brain can't handle stress as well as a man. When you are in a life to death situation a women is going to go into panic mode wayy before a man does.


That's what we call a stereotype


----------



## CallmeBerto (Jan 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I fail to see how a firearm requires any prerequisites other than the physical strength of lifting it/overcoming recoil, and the psychological ability to pull the trigger. Having shot rifles for sport on multiple occasions before, I'd say that the cold-steel murder device (because really, that's what they are) doesn't care much about the gender if the person holding it
> 
> 
> There's no issue here as long as everyone who enlists is able to pass a health and strength check. I don't think there's anyone out there who are trying to argue that shouldn't be the case



See mine or Marvick's post on how man and women's brains are different and how they handle stress.

The problem with the women's standard is that they are a damn joke and also MUCH lower's then a man's.


----------



## cracker (Jan 17, 2018)

I know better than to get into the man vs woman talk. Drafting is getting less and less important/likely as time goes on due to long range weapons, drones, etc. If the US was invaded (Canada? Mexico? lol) then the draft would be necessary but then there would already be volunteer citizen militias all over the place protecting the homeland.


----------



## TheRedfox (Jan 18, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Let me clarify a bit. A man's and women's brains are DIFFERENT they react to things DIFFERENTLY. Example a women's brain can't handle stress as well as a man. When you are in a life to death situation a women is going to go into panic mode wayy before a man does.


The fuck. 

... I'm outta here


----------



## cracker (Jan 18, 2018)

At least no one didn't mention Hitler. Oh crap...


----------

