US Elections 2020 thread

[Urinal Cake]

The broad idea is that people can vote once every four years and corporations can't. If people don't want wars or taxes they vote for that accordingly. So no votes for Beto.

Now obviously although corporations can't vote but they can lobby continuously. So can other organisations, citizens etc but they are always going to be out spent. Hence the system is broken.

[backdrifter]

There is some power, but very little. To decide that taxing those who are not involved in war instead of those who push immoral wars as an industry is bizarre.

That is not what I'm doing. Soldiers and their familes are not the ones pushing for war.

[Twed]

And neither are non-military families, you tricksy bro-hound.

[Paul Calf]

I don't think it's pushing it too far to suggest that people who literally make their living from the existence of war are probably - in general - going to be less keen to see it abolished than those who don't.

[sponk]

True but powerful lobbies like the tobacco industry have been defeated before

[phantom_power]

The citizens of a democracy are not divorced from the actions of their government (duh).

They are if they aren't given any other options. When have they been given the chance to vote for a non-interventionist government?

[Paul Calf]

True but powerful lobbies like the tobacco industry have been defeated before

Well, I was talking specifically about military families, but that too, yes.

Abolishing war won't make poverty go away. The soldiers who are effectively forced economic conscripts will still be there.

[backdrifter]

I don't think it's pushing it too far to suggest that people who literally make their living from the existence of war are probably - in general - going to be less keen to see it abolished than those who don't.

Could be true on average but a couple of counterpoints:
1. You still need an army even if you not constantly deploying it.
2. The soldiers get to see the full horror of it and often the pointlessness of the mission.
3. The soldiers actually know what the US is up to. Really easy to ignore if you don't know and soldiers and don't follow the news - which is a lot of people.

I remember Ron Paul getting massive support from soldiers and vets in 2012 because he was the only unapologetically anti-war candidate to get anyway near the presidency. They didn't want their mates to die pointlessly.

[kngen]

My partner's response to Beto's plan: 'WHAT?!? As if I haven't paid enough for these assholes already!' That's the daughter of a Vietnam vet currently residing in a VA care home there.

Currently non-military families can pretty easily ignore the outside world and just get on with their lives - not so easy if wars affect their paychecks.

I'm not sure where you live, but round here - in white boomer suburban hell - you can't move for stuff sanctifying the troops/veterans/America's god-given right to bomb the shit out of places they can't spell. Of course, it's all utterly superficial. The same yellow-ribbon-tying, flag-waving gorons will vote for politicians who spend their careers trying to cut VA pensions and healthcare and scuttle the GI education bill, so I'll give the skater son-in-law of a billionaire a molecule of credit for pushing back against that. But as a symbolic tax to thank these people for their service? FUCK NO! Fuck them and their service. So sick of hearing that craven, licky-bum shit. Fuck the troops. Seriously.

[Twed]

Could be true on average but a couple of counterpoints:
1. You still need an army even if you not constantly deploying it.
2. The soldiers get to see the full horror of it and often the pointlessness of the mission.
3. The soldiers actually know what the US is up to. Really easy to ignore if you don't know and soldiers and don't follow the news - which is a lot of people.

So they should be covered under universal, free at point of access healthcare like everybody else should be, and not under this tax on the poor & middle classes. Also maybe Beto shouldn't be making people join the military in return for citizenship, healthcare and college, because that is literally a conscription of the poor.

Or how about people instrumental in pushing wars are punished instead

[Mister Six]

I think you can agree with those points while also agreeing that if they were not to come into effect, shifting payment of vet healthcare from everyone to just those who haven't actually been signed up to the army is not a terrible idea. Especially as the tax change will be so minimal that it won't be an additional incentive to sign up.

Also it's a bit weird to be in favour of universal healthcare while complaining that you might have to pay for vets' healthcare when they and their families aren't contributing as well.

Anyway, the important thing is that O'Rourke has probably fucked his campaign. Which I think we can all get behind.

[Twed]

No, I cannot agree to that. It is a gift to the industries that benefit from war, and defers ever having to provide genuinely affordable healthcare to veterans, let alone the general public.

[Twed]

Also it's a bit weird to be in favour of universal healthcare while complaining that you might have to pay for vets' healthcare when they and their families aren't contributing as well.

Well no it obviously isn't due to this effectively being a subsidy for the war machine

How do you not see that this is primarily so that budgets do not have to be cut

[Twed]

Also the idea that the tax is minimal is bunk. When sometimes is instead of thousands of useful breaks and programmes its true cost is hidden.

It's just like Yang's UBI instead of benefits idea. Being given 1000 dollars a month would be very expensive for the recipients.

[Twed]

rCurrently non-military families can pretty easily ignore the outside world and just get on with their lives - not so easy if wars affect their paychecks.

Wait I thought the tax was so minimal that nobody would notice it? But it's also going to convince people that war is bad because it's expensive to them...?

[Mister Six]

How is it a subsidy for the war machine? I didn't see that part of the calculation. Is it reducing payments presently made by the military-industrial complex towards veterans' healthcare?

[Twed]

US - UK

The cost of war should be covered b

sorry but this is too soul-draining, I quit.

[Mister Six]

It's not what it should be covered by, it's what it is presently covered by, and how this legislation would change that. If they're not presently paying for veterans' healthcare then this would not be a subsidy, would it? A subsidy would suggest a reduction in the existing amount of money spent. Backdrifter points out that those in charge of the military-industrial complex are largely not in military families (because they know the actual cost of war, and have the cash to keep their kids out of it), so it wouldn't mean a reduction for them.

Importantly, Backdrifter is talking about the world as it is and you're talking about the world as you want it to be. Both of those things are fine, but it leaves you with an impossible-to-resolve situation because you're both essentially shadow-boxing.

[Twed]

Of course I am talking about what I want things to be, that's what progress means. Making things progressively worse isn't something I'd want to defend, but I guess you've made your choices.

[Mister Six]

Yes, and Backdrifter is talking about the application of the law as it pertains to what's happening now. You haven't explained why it's "progressively worse" than what is already there, just attacked it for not being the thing that's in your imaginary future. I also haven't said that I support O'Rourke's policy, because I don't.

I'm starting to suspect that you're really fucking thick.

[Twed]

I'm starting to suspect that you're really fucking thick.

I have explained several times why it's terrible for the general public to be expected to be expected to finance even more of the war budget. For you to think that this is a controversial viewpoint, and one that angers you so much suggests you might actually have died at some point in the past.

[Mister Six]

Well, the important thing is you believe that

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

I think the Beto tax would be wildly ineffective at this, but I presume the internal reasoning is that making Americans bear some responsibility for American imperialism will make them more likely to oppose American imperialism. In more dramatic form there has been a proposal since the 1970s to reinstitute the draft, with the thought doing so would stop future wars from starting.

[Dex Sawash]

Cory Booker may have spoken Klingon in the debate

[rjd2]

Cory Booker may have spoken Klingon in the debate

Health care isn't just a human right, it's an American right......

Ok.

Everyone here thinks Beto is a hack which is nice to see. I get the feeling that Warren is the chosen one here for sure though.

[Mister Six]

I think the Beto tax would be wildly ineffective at this, but I presume the internal reasoning is that making Americans bear some responsibility for American imperialism will make them more likely to oppose American imperialism. In more dramatic form there has been a proposal since the 1970s to reinstitute the draft, with the thought doing so would stop future wars from starting.

I don't see the logic in that, since the ones who start the wars are generally in a position to ensure they and their families don't actually have to fight them. The Vietnam War had a draft for 20 years and that didn't seem to impede it.

[backdrifter]

I don't see the logic in that, since the ones who start the wars are generally in a position to ensure they and their families don't actually have to fight them. The Vietnam War had a draft for 20 years and that didn't seem to impede it.

Ralph Nader used to say that the children of every House/Senate member who votes for war (back when that was still sort of a thing) and the cabinet should be draftable.

Everyone here thinks Beto is a hack which is nice to see. I get the feeling that Warren is the chosen one here for sure though.

For me it's Sanders or Warren. Warren has better and more ideas but I trust Sanders more to follow through on big change. I guess Ideally Bernie's the president and Liz is the genuinely involved (which is rare but not unheard of) VP.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

I don't see the logic in that, since the ones who start the wars are generally in a position to ensure they and their families don't actually have to fight them. The Vietnam War had a draft for 20 years and that didn't seem to impede it.

I don't agree with the logic, though for what it's worth I think the draft did play a major role in ending the war in Vietnam. Especially once the draft lottery made it more difficult for middle-class kids to avoid it... and when conscripted soldiers started fragging their officers as the war went on.

[Urinal Cake]

After the debate Beto is fucked. Nay worry about an army tax now.

Going by Google Trends, Gabbard is performing well. Castro and Booker on Twitter.

[Mister Six]

That could also mean people googling Gabbard because they have no idea who she is. Castro and Booker is that weird starey moment that happened when Castro spoke Spanish, isn't it?

CNN saying Warren polled the best after the debate, although I can't find their full results or methodology. Five Thirty-Eight hasn't got anything up yet.

Roster for the next one is Biden, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Gillibrand, Yang, and a quintet of "who?": Eric Swalwell, John Hickenlooper, Michael Bennet and Marianne Williamson. Three women again, so hopefully they'll pummel Biden over him being a fucking senile old creep.