What is so great about Trump and the Right?
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,968
Location: Adelaide, Australia
I am a European, and I also noticed how alot of fellow europeans are going far-right and think this is THE greatest thing happening, to abolish everything called welfare and give everything to the military, the rich and lowering the burdens of the strongest while increasing the burdens on the weak.
Why is this so popular nowadays?
Why is leftwing policies (not communist, but leftwing) so unpopular and why is right wing policies so popular?
I bet most people are definitely not billionaires in the waiting, so why would poor people want lower taxes for the rich?
Aside from "keeping the rich tax payers on [insert country]'s soil" (avoid they would leave the country in question) there really is no arguments for lowering taxes for the rich. Not any moral/ethical reasons, that is. There are practical reasons, but no moral reasons.
Remember: The rich are rich on behalf of the poor! They would not become rich was it not for the working poor!
And why should average people have to the "wage-slaves" for the employers in order to get anything to eat?
True leftwingers would have the solution ready: Give EVERYONE without a job a unconditional Basic Income that is equivalent to the minimum wage of 40 hours work a week, but without requirement of work! This would give ordinary, average people the TRUE freedom to live their OWN lives. Not only the rich, but the poor as well would be free!
It would also force the employers to give higher salaries to those who work, because everyone would in theory just stay home. And employment conditions would improve a lot, for the same reason.
Now, such a policy ought to be popular, but it isn't. And I cannot understand why, because MOST people are ordinary, low-wage employees. Would you not want TRUE freedom? Would you not want money without requirements, without any conditions other than you have no other income?
If your answer to above questions is "no", why wouldn't you?
Exploit the rich.
Give to the sick and poor.
Avoid forced labor including military service!
THIS is the HEAVEN on Earth!
But most people wouldn't want heaven on earth... they'd choose hell!
Without bashing or personal attacks, please explain to me why you would not want the rich to be forced to hand you money to live for, unconditionally?
I am so sick and tired of the Employers Organizations that if I expressed my real opinions on what to do about them, I would recieve a permanent ban on any forum.
The last time I checked, it was the big corporations that you hate so much giving people jobs. This whole rich vs. poor crap is class warfare, and the only thing it succeeds in doing is pit one group of people against another, which is precisely what the ruling elite wants, as it makes it easier for them to control the people. It's the whole divide and conquer thing. Can you honestly tell me that you'd rather live in a country where people hate each other? What you're suggesting should happen is called socialism, and never in the history of the world has this system succeeded.
_________________
"And when we walk down the street, the wind sings our name in rebel songs
But it's much too late when the fear is gone..."
Why yes, I am a conservative.
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Except when it did; like in the US during a period which correspond roughly between the 40s/80s: unless of course you consider that period to not have been socialism, but then you should not call "socialist" anyone who call for rising the tax of the rich and helping the poor. Turn out that when the rich have too much money, they don't invest it, they are hoarding it; and when you give the poor money, they are able to use it in smart ways that are good for the economy.
_________________
Down with speculators!! !
I am a European, and I also noticed how alot of fellow europeans are going far-right and think this is THE greatest thing happening, to abolish everything called welfare and give everything to the military, the rich and lowering the burdens of the strongest while increasing the burdens on the weak.
Why is this so popular nowadays?
Why is leftwing policies (not communist, but leftwing) so unpopular and why is right wing policies so popular?
I bet most people are definitely not billionaires in the waiting, so why would poor people want lower taxes for the rich?
Aside from "keeping the rich tax payers on [insert country]'s soil" (avoid they would leave the country in question) there really is no arguments for lowering taxes for the rich. Not any moral/ethical reasons, that is. There are practical reasons, but no moral reasons.
Remember: The rich are rich on behalf of the poor! They would not become rich was it not for the working poor!
And why should average people have to the "wage-slaves" for the employers in order to get anything to eat?
True leftwingers would have the solution ready: Give EVERYONE without a job a unconditional Basic Income that is equivalent to the minimum wage of 40 hours work a week, but without requirement of work! This would give ordinary, average people the TRUE freedom to live their OWN lives. Not only the rich, but the poor as well would be free!
It would also force the employers to give higher salaries to those who work, because everyone would in theory just stay home. And employment conditions would improve a lot, for the same reason.
Now, such a policy ought to be popular, but it isn't. And I cannot understand why, because MOST people are ordinary, low-wage employees. Would you not want TRUE freedom? Would you not want money without requirements, without any conditions other than you have no other income?
If your answer to above questions is "no", why wouldn't you?
Exploit the rich.
Give to the sick and poor.
Avoid forced labor including military service!
THIS is the HEAVEN on Earth!
But most people wouldn't want heaven on earth... they'd choose hell!
Without bashing or personal attacks, please explain to me why you would not want the rich to be forced to hand you money to live for, unconditionally?
I am so sick and tired of the Employers Organizations that if I expressed my real opinions on what to do about them, I would recieve a permanent ban on any forum.
I'll number my responses in correspondence to each of your paragraphs.
1. Most people don't support Trump on a personal level -- America and Europe. Personally, I support him as our President, acknowledging him that much respect just as I did the previous POTUS, Obama (as much as I didn't like him).
2. The European right and American right differ quite a bit, as I've discovered from my conversations with Europeans and partly from some of the time I spent living in Germany. The American right, is individualist: pro-liberty. The European right, from what I've come to understand, is anything right of democratic socialism. My perception comes from a philosophical viewpoint, one should note this. It's absurd that you think the American right has been wanting to increase taxes on the poor -- the working poor in America, the class my family has belonged to for generations, is very much right-wing outside of the cities. Also, not even American GOP wants to get rid of welfare completely, rather, they want to reform it to prevent abuse and re-integrate people on welfare back into contributing to society.
3. It's not that popular -- mainstream media is definitely left-wing biased, school curriculum has a political agenda (especially in higher education); but, perhaps the resurgence in American right-wing ideologies comes in reaction to being tired of having leftist agenda forced upon us, which is why generation Z is said to be the most conservative generation in America for a very long time.
4. Left-wing policies are very popular and very alive in the world as a whole. I often argue that the collectivists won the ideological part of the Cold War -- the USSR may have fallen, but their set of ideas have become more popular than ever before.
5. In America, the working poor want lower taxes across the board. Lower, middle, and upper class. Why would anyone want to increase financial burden on their employers -- do you believe it would help employees if their employers can't afford to pay them? Small businesses are hurt the most by increases on taxes on "the rich" (which is most often small business owners, middle class, and lower 1% which makes well less than one million USD).
5.5 (this is supposed to be 6, but I just noticed I missed a paragraph)
For one, it's immoral to think you have a right to another's property and labor. You're talking wealth redistribution which is just that. Slavery. Also, economics -- the economy doesn't work by hurting innovators. Also, you should note that the largest businesses, the ones most connected with the government, support collectivism knowing that they will benefit. Wall Street, for example, has supported left-wing candidates from the Democratic Party in America. Alphabet Inc. is notoriously left-wing, and it's one of the world's largest conglomerates (they own Google, YouTube, etc). So, you do not have the moral high ground on this one by any means. The ones defending everyone's rights to life, liberty, and property, can hold higher moral ground in that they want equal treatment before the law for all.
6. The poor wouldn't have those jobs if it weren't for the innovation of the people that became wealthy. Sure, there are wealthy people that inherit and that's becoming more frequent as competition is stifled by big government regulations and favoritism/cronyism; but, in the end, many of these wealthy people worked hard, such as that of Bill Gates, of whom founded a company that now employs over a hundred thousand people. We, the poor and middle classes, do work for these companies and represent it and contribute to it, but without their innovation or their drive or motivation, that company would not exist and therefore those jobs not exist. Reminder: this is from an American perspective. We're not like Germany in which every company is hand-in-hand with the government, though we are heading down that road with the growth of our government.
7. My response for this would go into economics, as to why we have currency. That is a very long subject to cover, but in short: it's better to use cash as a commodity for trade than to barter. Also, people need to work to contribute to society -- society wouldn't exist without work. Without work, crops are not sown, goods aren't distributed, tools aren't created, services aren't offered -- we work jobs so that we have something to give to each other in a system of voluntary exchange.
8. That's flat out serfdom and borderline slavery. To say you have a right to another's labor is to say they are your slave. Also, there is no freedom when people are being dictated as to how much they can produce. Did you know Venezuela has been doing that under their Bolivarian regime? They killed their own industry, and left themselves with a oil-reliant economy, in addition to a myriad of other problems (I wish I had my two papers that were in regards to the Venezuelan economy).
9. Because I value true freedom: I do not wish to enslave others. I also understand economics and appreciate the importance of economics as well as our natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
10. It's not popular because it doesn't work and has failed every time it was implemented historically. In addition, I can say it's immoral -- there are many that oppose it for both reasons given.
11. Employment conditions do not improve when you take away more of their money. Instead, they are forced to make budget cuts or collapse. This puts more strain on the employees and employers. I forgot to mention, welfare entitlements do make people want to stay home and not go to work. Having non-competitive wages makes people want to slack off since hard work is not recognized, there is no incentive to be successful. This is clearly reflected in the Soviet Union, for example, or Venezuela, Greece, etc.
12. I've probably lost count, so my numbers might not properly correspond -- I reply at 4 in the morning, CST, without any sleep. Anyways, this post will cover the remainder of your post: it's not true freedom, and I don't support it because I don't support serfdom or slavery. I don't support stealing from people because they're doing better than I am. I am grateful for what I have and find joy in family, and not in material objects.
You have a lot to learn in life, a LOT. I don't mean any offense in this statement or anything I've written above.
Please read "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell (5th Edition is the latest, I believe). If I can drag myself through works of Marxist philosophy, and a certain other collectivist philosophy, then you can drag yourself through an economics book.
Best of luck.
Regards,
Hyeokgeose
_________________
"It’s not until they tell you you’re going to die soon that you realize how short life is. Time is the most valuable thing in life because it never comes back. And whether you spend it in the arms of a loved one or alone in a prison-cell, life is what you make of it. Dream big."
-Stefán Karl Stefánsson
10 July, 1975 - 21 August, 2018.
GoSensGo
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 31 Oct 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Newfoundland
Vote 3rd party.
Well, even despite that, there's some gems. I prefer to look at the character of individuals running, with some inclusion of their platform. For example, I looked at the candidates of the Libertarian Party, Grand Old Party, and Democrat, primaries. My favorite was Ben Carson because of his character -- even though I agreed most with Rand Paul in regards to policy. Carson: rags to riches, and a blessing of a human being. In my eyes, he would have destroyed every stereotype that the American left has set on Americans on the basis of their melanin. He just ended up being too soft-spoken, and too soft in general -- the media trampled him to death at the beginning, as they saw the threat he was. Oh, only if he had the strength that Trump has... yes, I will admit Trump has a lot of strength.
Aside from voting for the GOP in the 2016 presidential primaries, I voted for libertarian Stanton, albeit a clown, for senate.
_________________
"It’s not until they tell you you’re going to die soon that you realize how short life is. Time is the most valuable thing in life because it never comes back. And whether you spend it in the arms of a loved one or alone in a prison-cell, life is what you make of it. Dream big."
-Stefán Karl Stefánsson
10 July, 1975 - 21 August, 2018.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,692
Location: the island of defective toy santas
He hates his own race?
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,182
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
^ I was tempted to say something as well but I couldn't think of an appropriate way in at it being that looks too hyperbolic to have even been meant seriously. Even if he meant them seriously I'm forced to just take it as an emotional rant and not argue with it.
If it were meant to be serious then things to unpack would include:
1) He's an Uncle Tom or race traitor for having graduated med school?
2) He's an Uncle Tom or race traitor to not have his entire read of politics be 90% social programs and maybe 10% anything else?
If that's how we're supposed to think of race and politics I'm afraid Richard Spencer would heartily condone that message. It's the 'problem' the Alt Right and white identitarians are here to remedy. I tend to just see it as a particular kind of problem that only certain kinds of people have and whether on the left or right they seem to have way more in common than they'd like to hear.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
It's identitarians on both sides. They think people have to act a certain way based on their skin color.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,692
Location: the island of defective toy santas
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,182
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
You're right, I don't get it.
I think a more accurate description of the problem might involve evaluating his ideas and beliefs individually.
As for his personal character - I have a friend of the family who worked in the same hospital with him and no one she was aware of had a negative thing to say about his character. Really it was quite the contrary - ie. that he was quite well loved by the staff. Of course, then again, if most of those glowing reviews happen to be from white people loving a minstrel show we can maybe brush that under the carpet but regardless I'm not comfortable with people essentially labeling a person they politically disagree with a psychopath, sociopath, or just fundamentally inauthentic. These days as far as I can tell it's more than just just sloppy or ignorant, it's getting outright dangerous and to the extent that people are doing it on mass it's threatening the structure of our society. When I say structure I don't mean, or at least I don't 'think' I mean, institutional racism but rather being able to solve the real aches and pains that people are having without throwing the whole system up in the air, millions of people dead, and hoping that what regroups won't be a bloody tyranny.
My best advice perhaps - try watching how Bret Weinstein, Jonathan Haidt, or even Steven Pinker handle these issues.
As far as the political process goes in the US and across the west I'm really thinking there needs to be a standard working ethos and the end formation might be a better phrasing of the following:
Either practice Rapaport's Rules for constructive debate or be prepared to be treated like a non-participant until you're ready to update your public reasoning strategies to meet current cultural needs and requirements.
The main point of Rapaport - if you can't explain your opponents views either just as well as your opponent, or even with their admission that you phrased their point better than they could have, you end up assailing a straw man or some projected phantom or boogeyman of your creation. I see it all day on my Facebook friends list with Trump where enough of my witchy pagan friends keep showing cartoons with increasingly distorted pictures drawn of him and it's as spooky as if he were a nightmare mirror to their own souls. Such behavior is I'm sure cathartic for the person doing it but it doesn't actually solve problems in any broader sense and, much more importantly, we can't build any sort of constructive national dialog or public policy on personal catharsis.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 23 Dec 2017, 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why is it hypocritical for a wealthy person to look out for his own self interest? Doesn't it make sense that the wealthy would want tax breaks for the wealthy?
It makes more sense to me than tax breaks for the poor that don't pay much in taxes anyway. Especially when they lose much more in benefits from the government than they stand to gain from lower taxes. But, who am I to understand the poor?
Biscuitman
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers
No, you don't get it. You're so biased that you believe the only reason he'd have these stances is because he's a race traitor. The 'affordable' health care act wasn't affordable for a lot of people because there was no market competition between companies. I think any level headed person is against giving token jobs out. It only makes things worse. Yeah, I'm sure he just wants police to beat people up
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,182
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
My biggest problem with the ACA is that it's absolutely crushing the lower-middle and middle class. I know a lot of healthy people paying somewhere between a second car payment to two second car payments for even $5,000+ deductible healthcare insurance. Even for me, living at home, it's been $230+. Add to this families of four paying over $1,000 per month. We're already in a precarious place for work, the millennials are already buying far fewer homes, and through globalism the working class is already being shoved down into poverty. The main problem with the thrust of the above direction - when you have the middle class dissolving and the country is bifurcating increasingly into ultra-rich and poor you're in a position where things get undemocratic fast.
If anyone wants to do something to fix this they really need to focus on just why on earth we're shelling out this much for this little service. I've heard some people offer some ideas that our system just doesn't focus, at all, on preventative care the way it should. We also have some bizarre fetishes about how to handle end of life care where in a person's last few years they easily rack up a half million in costs at times, and a lot of this could be prevented with better operating practices. Either way I think we need some type of think tank or political action group really taking aim at reducing medical costs in the US because it's out of control. That doesn't mean I'd support current regime plans, even when Trump's house got something that Blue Cross Blue Shield sounded like they were ready to accept some a***hole jammed a poison pill in there allowing states to opt out. To that end I'm highly pessimistic that government will be able to resolve this, or at least without heavy-handed instruction from much brighter people than themselves.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
What Is The True Color Of Jupiter's Great Blue Spot? |
10 Mar 2024, 5:07 pm |
Trump thinks he looks like Elvis! |
13 Feb 2024, 7:54 pm |
Donald Trump Likely Going To Prison |
29 Feb 2024, 1:04 am |
The courts will not save us from Donald Trump |
21 Mar 2024, 8:06 am |