Mostly I am for a mixed economy. I think the best we can achieve in the US is a capitalist economy with strong social elements.
Well that certainly isn't what the Wikipedia article on what being a social democrat is. (If you get my earlier point.) Though, I feel that's kind of what we already have in many ways, and a lot of those social elements are very poorly handled. (I'm sure maybe that could be agreed upon, I suppose the divide would be how you'd fix those things.)
I don't want to ban guns. I just think there should be more regulation. And I'm not talking about making it near impossible to get a gun. I'm talking about logical shit like universal background checks and waiting periods. Getting a gun shouldn't be easier than getting a driver's license.
Well thankfully, you need a license to buy any gun. (Among other things.) But I'll leave that point be, since I don't wish to get sidetracked. In fact, I'll simply make a point in my next question.
I honestly think drugs should just be legalized, with very few exceptions like those drugs that literally rot your skin off. Legalize drugs, tax them, make bank, and simultaneously cripple illegal drug trade. I think a lot of the problems we see with cartels would probably go away if their product was made legal. Fighting the war on drugs is a waste of time and money and it's ruining people's lives over non-violent drug offenses.
Basically agreed with the latter half, the former I think decriminalization would be a considerable/negotiable step in the right direction. Because you'd be combating the biggest issues with drugs, while maybe not encouraging people to try harder ones. I mean, when microwaves have to tell people not to stick their cats in them...do we pull that trigger? I dunno.
But I digress, say in this scenario. Just picture if you will. You -could- potentially have the drugs and alcohol etc. But you'd need to be put in a drug/booze registry. Which will obviously cost money and require overhead. You'd need to give multiple reasons on why you'd want to take the drugs. You'd be required for a government inspection of your propriety to make a judgement if you'll be responsible with your drugs. You could only use a certain licensed amount, only use it yourself, don't use it in specific areas, or risk paying a hefty fine or prison time.
I could go on, doesn't this sound ridiculous? (I sure do hope so.) Is it just because their completely different? Well not entirely, they can harm you and those around you and be quite dangerous and self destructive...after all just in 2016. More people died from drugs than guns or cars. But there's so many people taking drugs, some put in prison for smoking in their home, is that something that should be allowed in hands of a responsible adult without big brother?
(Obviously, playful.
Heroine ain't exactly in the Constitution, but I'm sure it would be if The Founding Fathers tried it.) But hey, food for thought.
Pun intended, I'm shameless.I haven't really put much thought into this. I think Americans' diets are dogshit and I see why we would want to discourage unhealthy foods, but at the same time, it's up to the individual. If you want to drink soda until you're diabetic that's your business. I don't know if I'd go as far as increasing taxes on soda, but again I haven't really thought about it.
Well I'm not fact checking anyone here. What do you think the problem is when it comes to people making poor health and lifestyle choices? Is it solely because of Capitalism and overabundance? Well, the U.K actually is the 6th 'fattiest' in population above the United States. So probably not. Cheapest food? (Kind of goes hand in hand.) So feel free to give me your speculation. (If you want...)
I don't think this is true; I think this is a right-wing meme. I don't know of anyone on the left who thinks everyone, regardless of education, financial success, ect should end up in the same place. I think when people on the left advocate for "equal outcome" it's not in all things. What they mean is everyone should be guaranteed a certain degree of *basic* means with which to live. A living wage regardless of who they are, healthcare, ect. They're not saying a poor person should be guaranteed a BMW. They're saying they should be guaranteed basic things.
I mean it's not a phantom theory. Diversity Quotas, and Affirmative Action, widespread ideas of 'Pay Gaps' and 'Wage Inequality'. It seems to already be in law in several forms and be apart the main talking points.
Who exactly decides what 'basic' things people need? We that be enough to satisfy creatures that desire? Okay, so now fancy car. Well, is transportation a basic thing? If not, why not? Everyone does it, everyone needs to do it. Right?
If so, where does that rabbit hole go? Free bikes? Probably cheaper and more environmentally friendly than cars, so yeah why not? How about people that can't ride or have no legs? Should they get a free robotic leg? Obviously, everyone -has- two legs. That's a basic thing. People born blind or deaf, they obviously need free surgery to get as close to normal as possible. Retarded? Hmm...didn't even scratch the surface, but it already seems rather complicated for 'basic things' right?
I think she's doing alright. There are certain things I think she needs to work on, and I'm not fond of her calling herself a democratic socialist, because she simply isn't. She's a social democrat. I do think her win (and the subsequent uptick in people joining the Democratic Socialists of America) does show there are many people in the Democratic Party who think we should go further left. In fact, I think most politically active young people on the left do. I think she generated a lot of excitement and interest.
I actually agree in multiple ways with that. I think at least the idea of disliking the establishment party has never been a stronger sentimental for the younger generations. I know you don't like Trump, but his win will bring forth people would normally turn their noses at. People with non-political careers. Younger sorts, perhaps even more diverse in the label sense and intellectually. I don't consider this a negative at all. I certainly think more politicians, and presidents will (or at least try) become successful by not playing the moderate or milquetoast game. The right, the left both farther on the spectrum. Thus the options, may very well feel like-choices. I sincerely hope more people like her, in general and specifically try for a political position. Maybe even have a third party getting enough votes to make both parties sweat bullets, and actually feel like they have to try to earn their civilians vote. A man can dream.
That may have had an impact, but he was a 20 year incumbent, so I don't think she just got lucky. She did her job, ran a good campaign, and appealed to the interests of people in her district. She earned the win.
#HackedByBots Hey, I'm not politically biased when it comes to working your ass off. I can't imagine how much stress all that puts on somebody. I don't want to come over like I think it was luck. I know it's a cliche, but most things happen for a reason. Though I'd say it certainly helped playing to a much further left demographic in New York, and I'm sure you could agree hubris/self-assurance is clearly something that looks embarrassing when you lose.
I mean, literally the Vice President.
EDIT: "Focus" is a pretty narrow qualifier. I think we'd have to go down to like, religious fundamentalists to find someone who has made it their "focus" to overturn gay marriage. But I think a lot of people on the right are against gay marriage as a secondary thing that isn't their main focus. Pence being one of them. I literally googled "republicans who are against gay marriage" and found several results showing anti-LGBT legislation being passed (or attempted) by Republicans as early as last month in some states.
I know the shocking gays meme is amusing. But do you know exactly where all that comes from? It was basically, him wanting to refuse funding for sexual advocacy with tax dollars for AIDS. (Which at that point, people pretended everyone could get...)
"All HIV/AIDS advocacy at the time emphasized that everyone engaging in unprotected sex was at risk for HIV infection. The Ryan White Care Act assisted all people with HIV who qualified for its financial assistance. As a Christian conservative, Pence’s preference for directing tax dollars towards organizations promoting sexual responsibility to reduce the spread of HIV is not particularly controversial."
SourceI know this could spiral into it's own thing, since this has been touched on before. But if we went on religion, the democrats wouldn't fair any/much better. Remember, stupid stuff like Prop 8 passed literally everywhere. If you google "Democrats that don't support gay marriage" you'll find things too...obviously religion does play a contributing part in that.
But I'll stand vehemently on the fact that this is primarily and old vs new thing. Hell sex in general is taboo in American for some reason. With marriage having it's own complications. And there's gays who were perfectly happy calling it civil unions. As much as I stand for gay rights/marriage. I'm not quite sure I'm on the same page. Also, I'm not googling it. So I wouldn't know. But the 'Anti-LBGT stuff', I would only assume the 'T' part would be more likely to be brought up. Since that is more of the 'hot button' issue. (If I'm incorrect, please share if you find anything particularly egregious.)
