Politics, Politics, Politics

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!

Medea

The Shadow Queen
This thread is for posting any of your political beliefs. Let's keep it civil. Since this is such a broad topic to cover, there may be many conversations going on all at once.

I'll tell you a little about my own political beliefs. I'm a liberal democrat, and I will DEFINITELY vote to re-elect President Obama, but I'm against my own party on a few issues. The biggest two are gun control and political "correctness".

I'll start the conversation on why I think gun control is wrong. Believe me, I tried to get several of my liberal friends to wake-up on this issue over the years, but I've had little success. Here's why gun control is a disaster:

1) If you take away people's guns, they cannot defend themselves against the government, corporations, or psycho killers.

2) Guns don't kill people. Psycho killers and insurance company death panels do. If you take away guns, people will still kill one another. I know, it sound CRAZY, right? ;) Well, take your choice: poison, bombs, fire, knives, swords, fists....etc....etc... People killed each other long before we had guns, and will continue to do so even if they are taken away. If someone has a gun for protection it's actually more likely they WON'T be killed violently. More people are killed by car accidents every year than gun accidents in family homes, so maybe we should petition to take all cars off the streets, huh? Yeah, right. Maybe we should outlaw fast food, because that kills people too. Sorry, but blaming a gun for killing someone is like blaming pencils for bad hand writing. You can't say an inanimate object, in and of itself, is "dangerous".

3) Taking guns away from people will NOT stop crime, or even slow it down. This is the biggest myth of all. Why? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY!!!! You have to register all of your firearms. Criminals by guns from underground, illegal weapons dealers, because if they have a felony record, they can't buy a gun! So, if you take away all registered firearms, the only people left that will have guns, aside from the military and police, will be criminals.

I will admit, however, some aspects of gun control could be useful. For instance, do we really need extended clips and drum magazines for personal protection? Those types of things are only useful for one thing: mass shootings. So I do think we should eliminate extended clips for civilian use. That's my two cents.
 

solace84

God of the Arena
we'll be needing guns for the zombie apocalypse.
 

Mr.Self Destruct

Chosen Undead
People should have the right to bear arms. Enforcing gun control out of fear of potential crime is like cutting off your foot in fear of stubbing your toe.

Sent from HTC app Tapatalk
 

Medea

The Shadow Queen
Okay, let's talk about taxing the rich. I just don't get the republicans argument against taxing the rich 2% more. As of right now, they officially pay 35% taxes, but after corporate loopholes, some of the bigger companies in America pay zero taxes. The republicans have passed legislation that raises taxes on the poor and middle class, but absolutely refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy. It reminds me of the French aristocracy before they got their heads put on pikes.

First of all, you can tax the poor and middle class all you want and it won't make a difference. In 2009 the bottom 50% of all taxpayers (close to 70,000,000 people) paid 2.25% of the federal income taxes in America. The top 50% paid 97.75%, with the top 1% paying 36%. Now, republicans use those numbers as an excuse to say that the wealthy "pay their fair share in taxes already". I say the reason the top 1% pays 36% of the federal income taxes in this country is because they HAVE ALL THE MONEY. If we all actually pay our fair share in taxes, at a rate of 35%, proportionate to how much money we make, THAT is fair. But since corporations use loopholes to avoid paying taxes, the ones getting screwed are all the rest of us.

Quick history lesson: After F.D.R. was elected, in 1932 the top marginal rate for taxes jumped from 25% to 63%, mainly because the rich were starving the country into depression, and also because of the war. But by the 1950s the top marginal rate was over 90%! That's right. Back in the "good old days" company CEOs paid over 90% of their incomes in federal taxes and still lived comfortably with a couple hundred thousand a year in earnings. And the republicans call Obama a socialist for wanting to raise the rate from 35% to 37%? Yeah, right. If anything, looking at our tax rates through history, America used to be a socialist country, at least economically. Now we have become a Plutocracy. A government ruled by the rich, for the rich.

All of you can look up everything I just said and you'll find it all to be true. Quit being misled by the corporate controlled media and get yourself informed before we all start speaking Chinese.
 

Medea

The Shadow Queen
Boo taxes. Yay Chinese food!

I know you're just trying to be funny solace, but without taxes we would have no roads, no public schools, no transportation system, no cops, no fire fighters, no teachers, no government or laws aside from ruthless warlords, and no military. Without all that, the Chinese really would take over, and we'd all be forced to eat cat parts from here on out. ;)
 

Mr.Self Destruct

Chosen Undead
China will never be able to win out over America in economic nor military terms. The difference between the two nations is that China's economy is dependent on the Western powers while America has far more assets and sources of commerce. The media likes to act as if we have a crisis on our hands, that we're dug in so deep with debt that China could steamroll us any minute. Truth is if they pulled the rug out from under the US, they'd be pulling the rug out from under their own economy.

There's something called the dependency ratio, which is shockingly good at predicting both economic success and failure. Essentially, if the working class outweighs the elderly and the very young as a general rule your economy will thrive. For instance, as the baby boomers reached their working years we saw a sharp increase in our economy. Now that they're retiring, things have slowed down.

I'm saying this because while China has a huge working class right now, their policies on childbirth which limit one child to a couple will come to bite them in the ass. Over the next 25 years, China is gearing up to age faster than any other developing country ever. By 2035, 280 million Chinese will be 65 or older. Senior discounts alone will cost the nation billions.

So if we're working for China in 25 years as the media predicts, chances are we'll be working in a nursing home.
 

Medea

The Shadow Queen
China will never be able to win out over America in economic nor military terms. The difference between the two nations is that China's economy is dependent on the Western powers while America has far more assets and sources of commerce. The media likes to act as if we have a crisis on our hands, that we're dug in so deep with debt that China could steamroll us any minute. Truth is if they pulled the rug out from under the US, they'd be pulling the rug out from under their own economy.

I don't think China could ever defeat the U.S. militarily, but it's entirely possible their economy could eventually crush our own. The reason they are doing so well is because we sent many of our manufacturing operations overseas, mainly to China. The U.S. was not a major world power until we had our own manufacturing boom during WW II. This skyrocketed us to the top economic power in the civilized world, and that's what made our superior military possible. Once the economy goes, so does the military. In other words, if we can do it, they can do it. I agree with you that the media sensationalizes everything, but we really are facing major problems down the road if things don't change.

I'm saying this because while China has a huge working class right now, their policies on childbirth which limit one child to a couple will come to bite them in the ass. Over the next 25 years, China is gearing up to age faster than any other developing country ever. By 2035, 280 million Chinese will be 65 or older. Senior discounts alone will cost the nation billions.

The bigger problem would be to let them have as many kids as they want and further compound the overpopulation crisis that plagues nearly all Asian countries, as well as the rest of the world. 280 million is really not that much compared to the 1.3 billion that currently live in China. Your only talking about 8-9% of the population. Compare that to the U.S., which had a 12.9% elderly population as of 2011.
 

Mr.Self Destruct

Chosen Undead
I don't think China could ever defeat the U.S. militarily, but it's entirely possible their economy could eventually crush our own. The reason they are doing so well is because we sent many of our manufacturing operations overseas, mainly to China. The U.S. was not a major world power until we had our own manufacturing boom during WW II. This skyrocketed us to the top economic power in the civilized world, and that's what made our superior military possible. Once the economy goes, so does the military. In other words, if we can do it, they can do it. I agree with you that the media sensationalizes everything, but we really are facing major problems down the road if things don't change.

Their economy is vastly dependent on the Western powers to export their manufactured goods, while America was supporting itself during it's economic boom. Everyone had a job, they were either building guns or firing them. They're a few non-economic explanations for the growth rate going on economically in China, namely the fact people are willing to die to get the work and from a young age children are desensitized and corralled into fueling China's economic machine. While it's true China kicks our ass education wise, fact is their colleges suck hard and like to crank out as many graduates as they can. One Chinese professor said that an average Chinese engineering graduate would have as much knowledge on the subject as a typical auto mechanic.


The bigger problem would be to let them have as many kids as they want and further compound the overpopulation crisis that plagues nearly all Asian countries, as well as the rest of the world. 280 million is really not that much compared to the 1.3 billion that currently live in China. Your only talking about 8-9% of the population. Compare that to the U.S., which had a 12.9% elderly population as of 2011.

The reason the policy is in place is because China's population is pretty much choking the country. You lift the policy and in 25 years you have an overpopulation crisis so bad billions go toward cleaning up the country and accounting for the huge number of civilians.

The difference between the US and China when it comes to the elderly is that old people's homes are a rarity in China, catering toward 1% of people ages 65 or older. Said homes are in dismal conditions, 6 people to a room, with a single bathroom between them. Despite this, the fees are much higher than an average Chinese person could afford, averaging 1,300 yuan (while this is only 190 US dollars, we're talking about a nation who's minimum monthly wages are less than 150 dollars.)

By 2050, the median age in China will rise from around 30 to 45. Over the next few decades the ratio of elderly dependents to people of working age will rise steeply from 10% now to 40% in 2050. In 2030 the country will have more elderly dependents than children. The difference between China and other Asian countries is that this will happen when the country is relatively poor.

CSR535.gif

There is more info here, and much of the info posted comes from this link.
 

Medea

The Shadow Queen
The reason the policy is in place is because China's population is pretty much choking the country.

I'm not sure about this, but I don't think China has an "official" policy for population control. I thought that people could still have as many kids as they wanted, it's just that the ones who had only one child were rewarded by the government. If that child is a boy, they receive further benefits. That's why you see so many Chinese girls being shipped to the U.S. illegally. I know, it sounds like the same thing, but they're not actually forcing people to have only one child.

The difference between the US and China when it comes to the elderly is that old people's homes are a rarity in China, catering toward 1% of people ages 65 or older. Said homes are in dismal conditions, 6 people to a room, with a single bathroom between them. Despite this, the fees are much higher than an average Chinese person could afford, averaging 1,300 yuan (while this is only 190 US dollars, we're talking about a nation who's minimum monthly wages are less than 150 dollars.)
The reason China has so few homes is because most Asian cultures respect their elderly more than we do. Most of the time the word of the elder of the household is law, even if they are dependent on their sons and daughters financially. Most wouldn't dare stick their elderly in a home. This information was also found in the link you provided.

Anyway, this has been a good debate. I hope you're right Mr., because I don't want China to succeed. I think China is a despotism and treat their people like slaves, and even though I have defended them in a few of my posts, I sure as hell didn't want to. What China really needs is a healthy dose of rebellion.
 

Mr.Self Destruct

Chosen Undead


I'm not sure about this, but I don't think China has an "official" policy for population control. I thought that people could still have as many kids as they wanted, it's just that the ones who had only one child were rewarded by the government. If that child is a boy, they receive further benefits. That's why you see so many Chinese girls being shipped to the U.S. illegally. I know, it sounds like the same thing, but they're not actually forcing people to have only one child.

It's an official policy, which began in 1979 to limit the population growth. The reason boys are praised in China is because people want their family name to continue, girls are sometimes killed in secret so the couples can give it another try. And yes, they are, failure to comply is met with forced sterilization and/or hefty fines.

The reason China has so few homes is because most Asian cultures respect their elderly more than we do. Most of the time the word of the elder of the household is law, even if they are dependent on their sons and daughters financially. Most wouldn't dare stick their elderly in a home.

While it is true Chinese families are both culturally and legally bound to care for their elderly, you really can't say China will get off here because the fact still stands the elderly population will explode and will need care for. Whether it's in a nursing home or not hardly makes a difference.
Anyway, this has been a good debate. I hope you're right Mr., because I don't want China to succeed. I think China is a despotism and treat their people like slaves, and even though I have defended them in a few of my posts, I sure as hell didn't want to. What China really needs is a healthy dose of rebellion.

To be honest, America isn't falling any time soon. As a nation it's endured through severe hardships, and it'll take something big to bring it to it's knees. I agree action should be taken against China's government, and the way things are going they can only keep this up for so long before a worker finds out he doesn't have to do this any more.
 

Medea

The Shadow Queen
It's an official policy, which began in 1979 to limit the population growth. The reason boys are praised in China is because people want their family name to continue, girls are sometimes killed in secret so the couples can give it another try. And yes, they are, failure to comply is met with forced sterilization and/or hefty fines.

I had no idea it was that bad. :eek:

To be honest, America isn't falling any time soon. As a nation it's endured through severe hardships, and it'll take something big to bring it to it's knees.

I don't think we will fall anytime soon either, but if we do fall it may not be because of something big. Great nations like the U.S. can fall over time, due to corruption and greed, the way Rome fell. All it takes is being at the apex of power, then toppling over the hill. The momentum may be too great for us to stop it. Now I'm starting to sound too dramatic...
 

Howarthee

Qa'Darri - The unknown thief
I just thought I'd throw in my two cents about the China thing. My Sociology teacher told us that the government of China will allow more than one kid per family, but only if they live outside the cities, like on a farm. He said something about the Chinese government wanting to control the population in the cities more than anything.

3) Taking guns away from people will NOT stop crime, or even slow it down. This is the biggest myth of all. Why? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY!!!! You have to register all of your firearms. Criminals by guns from underground, illegal weapons dealers, because if they have a felony record, they can't buy a gun! So, if you take away all registered firearms, the only people left that will have guns, aside from the military and police, will be criminals.

I will admit, however, some aspects of gun control could be useful. For instance, do we really need extended clips and drum magazines for personal protection? Those types of things are only useful for one thing: mass shootings. So I do think we should eliminate extended clips for civilian use. That's my two cents.

I agree with you, if everyone had guns, criminals would be less likely to commit crimes because they could end up being the one staring in the barrel of a gun.

I kind of disagree though. I think that machine guns, assault rifles, pretty much any gun that can't be carried for personal protection or hunting should be banned/taken off the market. There's no use for those types of guns other than killing sprees. Also I think it should be illegal to buy ammo in bulk, there's no reason to buy thousands upon thousands of bullets just for one hunting season.
 

Pingu

a.k.a Charlie Goodvibes
I am from the Netherlands myself and elections are right around the corner here (sept 12). My country is an interesting case so I figured I'd share and give a little backstory as to where we stand for all of you who are interested in foreign politics.

Our votes make up the distribution 150 seats in parlement, called the 2nd room. (there's also a 1st room for which we hold seperate elections. The 1st room is where bills are passed/rejected after being proposed and approved by a majority in the 2nd room to be passed on to the 1st room.) The problem with the 2nd room right now is that it is being plagued by a vast ammount of political parties, with more being added almost ever election, making it increasingly difficult to form a coalition of 76 seats or more.
The current balance can be seen in this image.
400px-Tweede_Kamer_-_2010.jpg

As it stands, the coalition is in a demissionary state, which is why we are having elections shortly. Before becoming demissionary, we had a right wing coalition formed by 3 parties: The VVD, Liberal right. The CDA a center party that slightly leans to the right and the PVV. Some of you may have heard of the PVV, lead by Geert Wilders who's making quite the name for himself around the world with his rather unfriendly comments on Islam and non-western immigrants. It was the PVV that backed out of supporting the coalition and caused its demissionary state by losing its majority in the 2nd room.

The problem for the right winged VVD right now is that expectations are looking good for the upcoming elections and they are expected to become the biggest party in the 2nd room once again, but they won't be able to form a right winged coalition as easily this time. Here's why; The CDA are Christian democrats and their voters are making them pay a hefty price for working together with the PVV and its far right beliefs on immigration and foreign policies. Expectations are that their place in parlament will be halved, tallying their remaining seats at about 10. The VVD voters and the party itself are still quite dissapointed, some even angry, at the PVV for backing out of the former coalition and are unlikely to work together again as willingly in the future. The only remaining parties that could be willing to form a right wing coalition with the VVD would be D66, The CU and SGP. It is still VERY unlikely that they will be able to get a majority of at least 76 seats though as you can see on the image.

As far as my own political beliefs are concerned: I am happy with this myself though, since I have voted for the Groen Links party (Green Left) ever since I've been able to vote. As their name suggests, they hold strong beliefs in doing what is right for the environment and wish to see the industry/economy innovate more towards durability and pump less money into infrastructure and, for instance, the military. I'm hoping that, after the 12th of september, a mid-left coalition will be formed with GL among the cooperating parties.


Let me add something personal... I was born on the 5th of may, which is the day we celebrate Holland's liberation from the Nazi's in 1945. My grandfather used to volunteer at the local cemetary and took care of the wargraves in spite of his blindness up until his mid seventies. Because of his stories about the war and reading the names and dates on those graves I began to realize how much we owe to these men and all those who served. It is because of them that we did not end up as another Soviet satellite state and have always maintained our democracy and the right to vote. Because of that I've always been interested in politics and take voting very seriously. I'm happy to see other ''young people'' like myself interested in politics in this thread and if you have any elderly relatives/acquaintances who served during WW2, please let them know that their efforts are still greatly appreciated, even by some of the younger generations.
 

Medea

The Shadow Queen
I kind of disagree though. I think that machine guns, assault rifles, pretty much any gun that can't be carried for personal protection or hunting should be banned/taken off the market. There's no use for those types of guns other than killing sprees. Also I think it should be illegal to buy ammo in bulk, there's no reason to buy thousands upon thousands of bullets just for one hunting season.


In Switzerland, nearly every male member of the populace is required by law to own an assault rifle and a sidearm, and in 2009 they only had 84 homicides, with some of the world's lowest crime rates. The assault rifles in the U.S. are required by law to be semi-automatic only. We have banned fully automatic weapons for civilian use, at least under federal law (not sure about some states). The way people get around this is by using "bump-fire" adjustments to their guns. Many hunting rifles are much more powerful round per round than an AR-15 (the semi-automatic, civilian version of an M-16). So taking away assault rifles would only flood the criminal market with those types of weapons.

I agree with you though. We have to use more common sense on this issue. I'm for some cases of gun control, too. But I think we should always have the right to arm ourselves as well as the police do. Some police have greatly abused their power in this country over the past 20 years, and the only solution is for one day the people to start hitting back. This might sound extreme but... oh,well.

EDIT: Well, I just looked it up and I was wrong about the federal automatic weapons ban. That law expired on Sep. 13th, 2004. Oh, well. Unlike most politicians, I will admit when I made a mistake.
 

Howarthee

Qa'Darri - The unknown thief
In Switzerland, nearly every male member of the populace is required by law to own an assault rifle and a sidearm, and in 2009 they only had 84 homicides, with some of the world's lowest crime rates. The assault rifles in the U.S. are required by law to be semi-automatic only. We have banned fully automatic weapons for civilian use, at least under federal law (not sure about some states). The way people get around this is by using "bump-fire" adjustments to their guns. Many hunting rifles are much more powerful round per round than an AR-15 (the semi-automatic, civilian version of an M-16). So taking away assault rifles would only flood the criminal market with those types of weapons.

I agree with you though. We have to use more common sense on this issue. I'm for some cases of gun control, too. But I think we should always have the right to arm ourselves as well as the police do. Some police have greatly abused their power in this country over the past 20 years, and the only solution is for one day the people to start hitting back. This might sound extreme but... oh,well.

Assault rifles are to unwieldy to carry around in public without looking like you're going on a spree, so I honestly don't think it's necessary. You can protect yourself just as well with a sidearm in public if you're trained to use it (like any person with a gun should be).
In your example, most everyone is required to have an assault rifle and sidearm. I don't have any facts, but I stand by the point that you probably wouldn't be carrying around an assault rifle in public unless they're about to do something unsavory, so why are they necessary? To protect your home? Any other rifle or even a sidearm would be just as good.

I do agree, a lot of people make adjustments to their guns to make them act and possibly look more like non-civilian guns.

I totally agree with the common sense part. It seems like common sense is going down the drain these days. These days (in the US at least) it seems like everything is "unconstitutional" if it doesn't comply with whatever the person wants. And it's true, a lot of people most likely join the police force just to have power over others, and think they can do whatever they want. In the past few weeks alone I've seen at least four or five stories about cops doing things that went waay beyond the limits of what they should be doing. And for every crooked cop that makes it to the press, there's untold numbers of them that never get reported.
 
Top