The U.S. is more dangerously divided than any other wealthy democracy. Is there a way back from the brink? (Yascha Mounk)

[TraderPatTX]

Where do you see things moving within the coming 10 years. What would be a desirable outcome in your view, and what should be done to move in this direction?

Ideally, the federal government should be drastically reduced. Everything that is duplicated at the state and federal level should be eliminated at the federal level. We need to drastically reduce the authority and reach of the administrative state.

We must get off this fiat system. It boggles the mind that the same people who rail against big banks will vehemently defend the Federal Reserve, who has been failing at their primary job since day 1.

We need to stop being the world's police. It's ridiculous that we have troops in so many different countries.

We need new trade deals. While we are sitting here practicing free trade, almost every other country, mostly our allies put tariffs on our goods. That is not fair to what is left of our manufacturing. The supply chain problems we are still experiencing would be solved by moving manufacturing back to the United States. I'd rather pay a little more for a product than not be able to purchase the product at all.

We need to go back to the states being where new ideas are tried. If they are successful, more states will follow. If ideas fail, it only affects that one state and everybody moves on. We are seeing the beginning of state legislatures asserting their constitutional authority now.

There are many other things that need fixing, but this would enable the fixes to be implemented. For this to happen, we need to come together as a country. The "elite" fear us being united. That is why they spend so much time and effort to keep dividing us. First by race, then income, then sexuality and on and on, and we still fall for it. I know we will come together even though there are some here who would disagree.

 

[Xzi]

Because of the riots?

Because we'd have an auth-left leader like Mao who would have them executed.

What I don't understand is why open borders and universal healthcare are both associated with leftism? How can you advocate for both at the same time. It's very strange to me.

Lol, healthcare is already much cheaper in Mexico for one, to the extent that a lot of Americans cross the border to get medications/surgeries. For another thing, as long as we allow corporations to exploit migrant workers, we're allowing everybody's wages and standard of living to be suppressed. And lastly, cut 10% out of corporate welfare and/or our bloated military budget, we'd have no problem funding universal healthcare even with "open borders." It's clearly not a problem for European nations, and many of them accept a lot more immigrants than the US, relative to their landmass.

It seems like 1/5 of Republicans don't believe in democracy yes, but alot of democrats (1/10) are also against the idea. With 15% of the populus you can overthrow a government (hypothetically speaking) if this segment collectivises and has will power.

Where did you get that idea? It would take significantly more than 15% just to overcome local police, let alone the national guard or the military. A lot of these people would also think differently if they were able to live in a more representative democracy with 8-10 major political parties. The issue is that they lack representation in the two-party system. Making it a one-party system as TraderPat wants would not fix anything, it would only ostracize a much larger portion of the population.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Because we'd have an auth-left leader like Mao who would have them executed.


Lol, healthcare is already much cheaper in Mexico for one, to the extent that a lot of Americans cross the border to get medications/surgeries. For another thing, as long as we allow corporations to exploit migrant workers, we're allowing everybody's wages and standard of living to be suppressed. And lastly, cut 10% out of corporate welfare and/or our bloated military budget, we'd have no problem funding universal healthcare even with "open borders." It's clearly not a problem for European nations, and many of them accept a lot more immigrants than the US, relative to their landmass.


Where did you get that idea? It would take significantly more than 15% just to overcome local police, let alone the national guard or the military. A lot of these people would also think differently if they were able to live in a more representative democracy with 8-10 major political parties. The issue is that they lack representation in the two-party system. Making it a one-party system as TraderPat wants would not fix anything, it would only ostracize a much larger portion of the population.

We can't cut our military budget until we stop being the world's police. You can't take the responsibility of the security of other countries, have unlimited social programs, and unlimited migration. Europe can do universal healthcare because we pay for their defense. Why is this such a hard concept for leftist to understand? I know you all can't be that stupid, right?

I understand that the Federal Reserve can just print money but we are already seeing the effects of that.

Where have I ever said I want one party rule? Be very specific. Give me a date/timestamp of my comment or stfu. The lies a few people on here say about me are pathetic.

 

[Xzi]

We can't cut our military budget until we stop being the world's police. You can't take the responsibility of the security of other countries, have unlimited social programs, and unlimited migration. Europe can do universal healthcare because we pay for their defense. Why is this such a hard concept for leftist to understand? I know you all can't be that stupid, right?

Absolute idiocy, almost every European nation has its own military, and several have recently decided to expand theirs following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I understand that the Federal Reserve can just print money but we are already seeing the effects of that.

We're seeing a perfect storm of factors causing inflation, yes. Not least among them however is simple corporate greed, profiteering is way up.

Where have I ever said I want one party rule? Be very specific. Give me a date/timestamp of my comment or stfu. The lies a few people on here say about me are pathetic.

You want to take the vote away from the people and hand it to their state representatives instead. And the only reason you want to do that is because republicans currently control more state legislatures. You'd be singing a very different tune otherwise, that much is obvious.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Absolute idiocy, almost every European nation has its own military, and several have recently decided to expand theirs following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.


We're seeing a perfect storm of factors causing inflation, yes. Not least among them however is simple corporate greed, profiteering is way up.


You want to take the vote away from the people and hand it to their state representatives instead. And the only reason you want to do that is because republicans currently control more state legislatures. You'd be singing a very different tune otherwise, that much is obvious.

European countries expanded their military budgets from a tiny portion of their GDP to a small portion of their GDP.

Profits do not cause inflation. Excess dollars, which can only come from the Federal Reserve, causes inflation. Corporations are guilty of a lot of things, inflation isn't one them. Find another boogeyman.

Who do you think votes for state representatives, you dork? Did every leftist on this forum manage to graduate high school without taking a civics class? None of you even have a basic understanding of government structure in the US. All you have is accusing me of saying things I never said, or as it's more commonly referred to as outright lying.

 

[Creamu]

Pretty frequent. It's rather annoying when you suggest even remotely anything, even moderate suggestion to thing only to be called a commie/socialist for it.

That's interesting, since it is rather antiquated. Why do you think they are choosing to use this term? Do they get this from pundits? Is it something they use because they don't feel at liberty to say another term they truely mean or is this organic?

I can understand that, but there is a difference between attraction, love, and sex. The problem is some have an issue seperating those three. For instance, simply saying "Oh Timmy's dads are gay" is a lot different than "Timmy's dads like fuck each other".

They wouldn't be categorised as gay if they loved eachother in a platonic way.

Though I think having "sexual" in the title muddles things a bit too much there, even with Asexuality, which has no sex involved at all.

LGBT+ are quite explicitly about hedonistic sexual practice or identity, without this connection not much would be left.

The thing is though, replacement would mean that those jobs were meant for certain people and not just whoever comes along. The people I am talking about in question think that all jobs where any minority is hired is a "Diversity Hire" and only got the job on the merit of them being a Minority and nothing more.

I think it goes much deeper than that. The european people of the world will cease to exist in any recognizeable way if their biospheres get repurposed as a breeding ground for the whole world population to breed in.

That being said, demogaphic shifts are bound to happen when a society starts to become more equal and just, and view things as normal instead of "different", "abnormal", or "special".

How is it just if all european peoples countries are taken from them for this project. They have never voted for this.

Ideally, the federal government should be drastically reduced. Everything that is duplicated at the state and federal level should be eliminated at the federal level. We need to drastically reduce the authority and reach of the administrative state.

How do you think would this improve the situation?

We must get off this fiat system. It boggles the mind that the same people who rail against big banks will vehemently defend the Federal Reserve, who has been failing at their primary job since day 1.

Yes, the central value should be the labour of the people.

We need to stop being the world's police. It's ridiculous that we have troops in so many different countries.

That's coming to an end anyway.

We need new trade deals. While we are sitting here practicing free trade, almost every other country, mostly our allies put tariffs on our goods. That is not fair to what is left of our manufacturing. The supply chain problems we are still experiencing would be solved by moving manufacturing back to the United States. I'd rather pay a little more for a product than not be able to purchase the product at all.

We need to go back to the states being where new ideas are tried. If they are successful, more states will follow. If ideas fail, it only affects that one state and everybody moves on. We are seeing the beginning of state legislatures asserting their constitutional authority now.

Would you allow for freedom of association for states?

There are many other things that need fixing, but this would enable the fixes to be implemented. For this to happen, we need to come together as a country. The "elite" fear us being united. That is why they spend so much time and effort to keep dividing us. First by race, then income, then sexuality and on and on, and we still fall for it. I know we will come together even though there are some here who would disagree.

I would argue that the 'diversity is our strengh' agenda is meant for this but in a different way. You can't just overcome race as if it is not a natural reality. So uniting on those grounds must happen yes, but I think there are limits how far this can go.

Because we'd have an auth-left leader like Mao who would have them executed.

I see your point. Do you believe BLM is a organic movement or one instructed by globalist plutocrats?

Lol, healthcare is already much cheaper in Mexico for one, to the extent that a lot of Americans cross the border to get medications/surgeries.

Does Mexico allow for immigration like the USA does?

For another thing, as long as we allow corporations to exploit migrant workers, we're allowing everybody's wages and standard of living to be suppressed.

Yes. Even if they don't exploit them, they function to put more pressure on wages. It is a cyncial thing.

And lastly, cut 10% out of corporate welfare and/or our bloated military budget, we'd have no problem funding universal healthcare even with "open borders." It's clearly not a problem for European nations, and many of them accept a lot more immigrants than the US, relative to their landmass.

But if you have universal healthcare and let people from all around the world enter your country, you will attract people that will make you system collapse sooner or later.

Where did you get that idea? It would take significantly more than 15% just to overcome local police, let alone the national guard or the military.

No, not really. If you have around 10% of a populus that is determined and united to overthrow the system, it's pretty much over. The way these people can disrupt the system you can't get under control by any means. The local police, will they be motivated to act when confronted with such a scenario? Same goes for national guard and military. This are not some robots you can program to do any job.

A lot of these people would also think differently if they were able to live in a more representative democracy with 8-10 major political parties. The issue is that they lack representation in the two-party system.

It doesn't matter when the ruling class does whatever it wants regardless of which party is selected. It is just a bigger smokescreen.

Making it a one-party system as TraderPat wants would not fix anything, it would only ostracize a much larger portion of the population.

Maybe, but it would make very clear who is in charge and responsible. This was the downfall of the sowjet system.

 

[TraderPatTX]

That's interesting, since it is rather antiquated. Why do you think they are choosing to use this term? Do they get this from pundits? Is it something they use because they don't feel at liberty to say another term they truely mean or is this organic?

They wouldn't be categorised as gay if they loved eachother in a platonic way.

LGBT+ are quite explicitly about hedonistic sexual practice or identity, without this connection not much would be left.

I think it goes much deeper than that. The european people of the world will cease to exist in any recognizeable way if their biospheres get repurposed as a breeding ground for the whole world population to breed in.

How is it just if all european peoples countries are taken from them for this project. They have never voted for this.

How do you think would this improve the situation?

Yes, the central value should be the labour of the people.

That's coming to an end anyway.

Would you allow for freedom of association for states?

I would argue that the 'diversity is our strengh' agenda is meant for this but in a different way. You can't just overcome race as if it is not a natural reality. So uniting on those grounds must happen yes, but I think there are limits how far this can go.

I see your point. Do you believe BLM is a organic movement or one instructed by globalist plutocrats?

Does Mexico allow for immigration like the USA does?

Yes. Even if they don't exploit them, they function to put more pressure on wages. It is a cyncial thing.

But if you have universal healthcare and let people from all around the world enter your country, you will attract people that will make you system collapse sooner or later.

No, not really. If you have around 10% of a populus that is determined and united to overthrow the system, it's pretty much over. The way these people can disrupt the system you can't get under control by any means. The local police, will they be motivated to act when confronted with such a scenario? Same goes for national guard and military. This are not some robots you can program to do any job.

It doesn't matter when the ruling class does whatever it wants regardless of which party is selected. It is just a bigger smokescreen.

Maybe, but it would make very clear who is in charge and responsible. This was the downfall of the sowjet system.

It would improve the situation by eliminating bloat and redundancy, saving us trillions of dollars.

Peg the dollar to gold and eliminate the failing petrol dollar. Encourage people to save instead of going further in debt.

Freedom of association is a constitutional right, so yes.

The diversity movement is nothing but a fraud. They never advocate for diversity of thought. The people who advocate for diversity attack those who think outside the accepted corporate media and uniparty narrative.

 

[Creamu]

Freedom of association is a constitutional right, so yes.

What if states use freedom of association to collectivise within ethnic lines and outcompete other states out of ethnic coherency?

The diversity movement is nothing but a fraud. They never advocate for diversity of thought. The people who advocate for diversity attack those who think outside the accepted corporate media and uniparty narrative.

Yes they are cynically using people as pawns.

 

[Xzi]

Profits do not cause inflation.

Excess profiteering absolutely contributes to an increase in cost of living in the exact same way that inflation does. It doesn't matter that they're technically not one and the same, as they're often mistaken for one another.

Who do you think votes for state representatives, you dork?

Gerrymandered districts of voters. Which is why no republican president has won the popular vote since the fucking 80s, but they still control a majority of state legislatures. Again, you probably already know this, you just don't have a problem with cheating as long as it's your "team" doing it. You want tyranny of the minority to become permanent.

 

[Delerious]

The Democrat and Republican parties have been hijacked by the worst people, and sadly, we, the people, are the ones who put them in their position. In a way, we are getting what we deserve for becoming as complacent as we are. It's a government's duty to see to the welfare of the people, but it's also a people's duty to hold their government accountable. If people fail to hold their government accountable for too long, the power gap only widens. Sadly, it's come to a point where that power gap is so large, that it only becomes more difficult to overcome, especially given the power of corporate America and the military. Even if people do try to rise against the government or against one another, I can only see martial law becoming a thing, and good luck overcoming an army that has tanks and drones at its disposal, and has only been too eager to use them in past wars.

As far as the culture war goes, I'm pretty moderate, so as far as I'm concerned, going to far left or right is an insane way of thinking. The far right are so closed-minded, that they are willing to abandon any Libertarian ideals when it comes to social liberties. The far left tends to see themselves as open-minded, but when you even bring up the debate of what really defines gender, they will close themselves off from the potential of whether their ideology is really true - and in turn, become equally closed minded. I hate this notion that just because people question gender ideology that they are against LGBTQ rights, but for a lot of us in the moderate camp, we're not denying rights to anyone. We're just raising the question because we don't buy the ideology, but we are labelled as the worst of the worst people for even questioning it, so sadly, even we moderates are sometimes thrown into this idiotic culture war that we hardly want to be a part of, which I kind of think is bull shit.

 

[TraderPatTX]

What if states use freedom of association to collectivise within ethnic lines and outcompete other states out of ethnic coherency?

Yes they are cynically using people as pawns.

That would assume that any single ethnicity thinks the same way as an entire block, which none do not, unless you count suburban wine moms as their own ethnicity.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Excess profiteering absolutely contributes to an increase in cost of living in the exact same way that inflation does. It doesn't matter that they're technically not one and the same, as they're often mistaken for one another.


Gerrymandered districts of voters. Which is why no republican president has won the popular vote since the fucking 80s, but they still control a majority of state legislatures. Again, you probably already know this, you just don't have a problem with cheating as long as it's your "team" doing it. You want tyranny of the minority to become permanent.

There you go trying to redefine words

Tell me how many Democrat redistricting maps have been shot down by the courts this year alone and compare with the number of Republican redistricting maps have been shot down by the courts.

It's hilarious that we can't speak of cheating in the 2020 election, yet here you are claiming that there is cheating in all elections where Republicans win. Pick a narrative and stick with it. Do we have the most secure elections in the world or do we not? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Creamu]

That would assume that any single ethnicity thinks the same way as an entire block, which none do not, unless you count suburban wine moms as their own ethnicity.

My 'assumption' here is that some ethnic groups if you let them work unhindered in their natural coherence will outcompete others by alot.

 

[TraderPatTX]

My 'assumption' here is that some ethnic groups if you let them work unhindered in their natural coherence will outcompete others by alot.

So should the more successful groups be hindered or should the less successful groups have a level playing field so they have the opportunity to be successful also?

 

[Creamu]

So should the more successful groups be hindered or should the less successful groups have a level playing field so they have the opportunity to be successful also?

What do you mean level playing field. Do you think if you switch out the japanese population with aborigines that they have a chance to uphold the standards of civilisation in japan?

 

[TraderPatTX]

What do you mean level playing field. Do you think if you switch out the japanese population with aborigines that they have a chance to uphold the standards of civilisation in japan?

Do you think that a Japanese population could live as aborigines do without starving and dying? Every group has their own strengths and weaknesses. All they need to do is figure out how to use them to their advantage.

What is the end goal? Money? Power? Technological advancement?

What if the end goal is to just be happy with your place in the world? Some people enjoy living off the land. Some enjoy the hustle and bustle of large cities. Personal success is defined by the individual, not outside groups.

 

[Creamu]

Do you think that a Japanese population could live as aborigines do without starving and dying? Every group has their own strengths and weaknesses. All they need to do is figure out how to use them to their advantage.

Yes but most of them cant build and uphold a civilisation as the USA. In fact only the people who built the american civilisation are able to do so. Fishes swim, birds fly, bringing them together and expecting comparable results is not going to happen.

What is the end goal? Money? Power? Technological advancement?

Civilisation. High trust society for europeans, japanese etc. Other peoples may live however they choose, but wrecking the biosphere of others is just cruel.

What if the end goal is to just be happy with your place in the world?

Then leaving people amoungst themselves is the way to go.

Some people enjoy living off the land. Some enjoy the hustle and bustle of large cities. Personal success is defined by the individual, not outside groups.

Merchants that thrive in cities dont contribute anything of substance. Alot of people want to life in civilisation, but who is willing and able to build it.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

but when you even bring up the debate of what really defines gender, they will close themselves off from the potential of whether their ideology is really true

That primary comes from the strong response of the far right constantly prosecuting trans people. If that effected you, a lot of us are sorry, that's not the intent, we're just so tired and sick of hearing it, and it's truly begging to hurt people that we have to start assuming that your part of that camp.
Texas has outright said it wants to ban gender affirming care entirely for example.
Even if your not a trans person, this still can help you. There are guys who's gender matches with what their birth. In other words, they are a guy, who is sure they are a guy.
but their hormones, for whatever reason it may be, is not quite aligned right. Maybe their voice still hasn't dropped and it's still pretty late in puberty. Or that their face looks a little more femine than it should. Or that they're developing wider hips, when they really shouldn't be.
This can be fixed through hormone therapy, which is what is prominently used. The right however, would rather intentionally skew things as "They're changing kids genitals!" Which is extremely false. Doctors only would do it when your 21, legal age, considered a full adult. Primarily since your body is still growing up to around that point, meaning complications.

Further more there's a lot of evidence multiple genders do infact, exist. We already are aware of people who do not match the binary XX XY format. There's some people out there who are XXY or whatever the fuck else I haven't mentioned. But then you also have the complicated thing that is brain development.
Tl;dr the body develops first, before the actual brain does. Which sounds obvious, but that also means that you can have the equivalent of a male body, with a female brain. Due to one being started later than the other, if any other hormone is more dominant than the other during that process, which naturally can happen. Then you get the people who feel genuinely uncomfortable in their own bodies, since their body developed in a prodominantly female esk setup. And is going to develop that way without intervention. While having the brain been developed in a more male esk setup, due to being started later. Not being developed at the sametime as their body.
We also know this isn't a new thing. If we trace back through different languages other than English. You'd quickly fine that there are words for people, that don't fit in the "he or she" binary way far back.

 

[leon315]

I believe Pelosi keeps poking China by visiting Taiwan as next major move proves US is desperately need a war to shift the internal unbearable political and social-economical tensions.

Very dangerous this US' move, by sending Pelosi THE GREATEST INSIDE TRADER EVER to such dangerous place like Taiwan right there's ongoing war in Europe, the humanity is never been so dangerously close to the WW3, thanks to Sleeping Joe and Liberalturds!

 

[Acid_Snake]

When one party in this country moves so far to the right that they reject democracy in favor of authoritarianism, I would guess that's the problem.

And this here is the problem, and why we will never see a solution.

As long as we have political cultists like Lacius, completely incapable of seeing the crap of his own party, the US will continue its decline.

Because nothing screems democracy more than saying "lets ban all political parties and ideologies except mine, cause everyone else, except me, is radical and extremist".

I hope you do know that this is exactly how Hitler rose to power, by telling everyone that the others were violent and radical and that they should be banned from politics.

Hitler eventually did what you ask for Lacius, he banned the other political parties because of people like you who gave him the Nobel Peace Prize and clapped like seals when he said that the Jews were oppressing the poor German workers.

So yeah good idea Lacius, lets have the same exact fucking discourse and MO as Hitler did to get to power, that's definitely not authoritarian.