Considering that most of the democratic party is incompetent and impotent, should we look across the pond for better leadership? Most european countries have pretty good liberal representation in their government and far more effective leadership. Whats up with our lackluster left? I say we drop them and get a better more effective party. We need balance. I doubt anyone in Europe would have lost to Donald Trump in an election.
Considering that most of the democratic party is incompetent and impotent, should we look across the pond for better leadership? Most european countries have pretty good liberal representation in their government and far more effective leadership. Whats up with our lackluster left? I say we drop them and get a better more effective party. We need balance. I doubt anyone in Europe would have lost to Donald Trump in an election.
Well, do you mean should we import Liberals as in "American conservatives" or do you mean "liberals" as in socialists?
If you mean the first, by all means, we need more moderates in America who can stim the tide of ultra-far-left American socialists. If you mean the second then sure as long as they are moderates, again we do not need more on the far-left side who can push the agenda into the absurd.
Considering that most of the democratic party is incompetent and impotent, should we look across the pond for better leadership? Most european countries have pretty good liberal representation in their government and far more effective leadership. Whats up with our lackluster left? I say we drop them and get a better more effective party. We need balance. I doubt anyone in Europe would have lost to Donald Trump in an election.
Well, do you mean should we import Liberals as in "American conservatives" or do you mean "liberals" as in socialists?
If you mean the first, by all means, we need more moderates in America who can stim the tide of ultra-far-left American socialists. If you mean the second then sure as long as they are moderates, again we do not need more on the far-left side who can push the agenda into the absurd.
Even canadians would be an improvement over our current left.
Considering that most of the democratic party is incompetent and impotent, should we look across the pond for better leadership? Most european countries have pretty good liberal representation in their government and far more effective leadership. Whats up with our lackluster left? I say we drop them and get a better more effective party. We need balance. I doubt anyone in Europe would have lost to Donald Trump in an election.
Well, do you mean should we import Liberals as in "American conservatives" or do you mean "liberals" as in socialists?
If you mean the first, by all means, we need more moderates in America who can stim the tide of ultra-far-left American socialists. If you mean the second then sure as long as they are moderates, again we do not need more on the far-left side who can push the agenda into the absurd.
Even canadians would be an improvement over our current left.
I would put that on hold for the time being. People aren't too pleased with Trudouche, including liberals. Wait until the bitterness subsides. Last thing you guys need are more angry people making rash decision that they'll regret immediately the next morning.
**** no, European liberals are even more alienating than our own.
I have absolutely no problem with Hispanics or immigrants or anything like that, but the last thing we need to do is basically start paying these people to do nothing, then let them riot every time they get upset. Just look at France (specifically Paris).
@Jacanuk said:
@sonicare said:
Considering that most of the democratic party is incompetent and impotent, should we look across the pond for better leadership? Most european countries have pretty good liberal representation in their government and far more effective leadership. Whats up with our lackluster left? I say we drop them and get a better more effective party. We need balance. I doubt anyone in Europe would have lost to Donald Trump in an election.
Well, do you mean should we import Liberals as in "American conservatives" or do you mean "liberals" as in socialists?
If you mean the first, by all means, we need more moderates in America who can stim the tide of ultra-far-left American socialists. If you mean the second then sure as long as they are moderates, again we do not need more on the far-left side who can push the agenda into the absurd.
Moderates are needed to stop the far-right as well, lest you forget :P
Both extremes, of which there is too much in this country, are not good.
More importantly, moderate goals are more easily accomplished (I would hope) because they're, well...moderate! I imagine if we ever got someone reasonable in office that didn't pander to the extremes of each either side, we'd get a lot done.
What are you talking about? European Liberals are literally ruining their continent with mass migration and zero border control. They’re destroying the very culture they used to adore. In 30 years, Europeans will be minorities in their own country.
Saturday night posts from @sonicare?? Interesting :P
@mrbojangles25 said:
Moderates are needed to stop the far-right as well, lest you forget :P
Both extremes, of which there is too much in this country, are not good.
More importantly, moderate goals are more easily accomplished (I would hope) because they're, well...moderate! I imagine if we ever got someone reasonable in office that didn't pander to the extremes of each either side, we'd get a lot done.
You want moderates in office? Find a corporate sellout who is moderate.
**** no, European liberals are even more alienating than our own.
I have absolutely no problem with Hispanics or immigrants or anything like that, but the last thing we need to do is basically start paying these people to do nothing, then let them riot every time they get upset. Just look at France (specifically Paris).
@Jacanuk said:
@sonicare said:
Considering that most of the democratic party is incompetent and impotent, should we look across the pond for better leadership? Most european countries have pretty good liberal representation in their government and far more effective leadership. Whats up with our lackluster left? I say we drop them and get a better more effective party. We need balance. I doubt anyone in Europe would have lost to Donald Trump in an election.
Well, do you mean should we import Liberals as in "American conservatives" or do you mean "liberals" as in socialists?
If you mean the first, by all means, we need more moderates in America who can stim the tide of ultra-far-left American socialists. If you mean the second then sure as long as they are moderates, again we do not need more on the far-left side who can push the agenda into the absurd.
Moderates are needed to stop the far-right as well, lest you forget :P
Both extremes, of which there is too much in this country, are not good.
More importantly, moderate goals are more easily accomplished (I would hope) because they're, well...moderate! I imagine if we ever got someone reasonable in office that didn't pander to the extremes of each either side, we'd get a lot done.
I completely agree with stopping the far right. But I dont know in what country we can find reasonable conservatives.
@sonicare: "I completely agree with stopping the far right. But I dont know in what country we can find reasonable conservatives."
At this point I'm fairly sure most people in this thread are talking past each other, using the same term for multiple definitions.
"Reasonable conservatives" by what metrics? "Moderates by whose definition: Yours? Bojangles? Jacanuks?
It would help if you provided some more details around what you like from foreign liberals or what you dislike about the current environment that you'd hope this would improve.
@sonicare: "I completely agree with stopping the far right. But I dont know in what country we can find reasonable conservatives."
At this point I'm fairly sure most people in this thread are talking past each other, using the same term for multiple definitions.
"Reasonable conservatives" by what metrics? "Moderates by whose definition: Yours? Bojangles? Jacanuks?
It would help if you provided some more details around what you like from foreign liberals or what you dislike about the current environment that you'd hope this would improve.
I am pretty sure there are political professors and learned people that could answer this question objectively.
But, since you asked, let's take voting rights for felons, for example:
Liberal: "Everyone should get to vote, even when they're in prison!"
Conservative: "If you break the law, you should never get to vote again"
Moderate: "You don't get to vote while you're in prison, but after you pay your debt and serve your sentence, your voting rights are restored."
The whole thing about the US right now, however, is that the compassionate solution (liberal) is considered "left-wing lunacy", the reasonable solution (moderate) is considered liberal/leftist, and the conservative solution is actually the norm, or at least accepted. We are so skewed to the right these days we've lost our zero point. "New Normal" is arguably the term of the decade and for the worst reasons ever.
We need to detox, lose our tolerance to the high. We're like Krusty the Clown freebasing moon rocks and going "this only gets me to zero".
@sonicare: Problem isnt the competance of the leaders. Its how stupid your people have become: For us "over the pond" it is painfully obvious that republicans are and have for at least the last 10 years gotten... Well, simply crazy... The words and sentences that come out of their mouth extremely seldom have any basis in reality to the point where they use "factcheckers" as a way to demean opposition. When you are ridiculed for talking fact you know there is something very very wrong with a big portion of your society. I think "education" is the magic word here, but then again republicans understood the value of poorley educated people a long time ago, hence the state of education in your country. If I were you Id move before it goes to shit, though Id say it already has... Do you have children? Are you planning to? How are they going to get educated???
Lol....you wouldn't want our liberals in the US. Our conservatives lean more to the left than your left. Our liberals dont pick up many votes, and certainly dont run many countries.
I'd agree that some European political influence in the US would likely help, I highly doubt it would have an effect if introduced since the US is so set in it's ways.
What are you talking about? European Liberals are literally ruining their continent with mass migration and zero border control. They’re destroying the very culture they used to adore. In 30 years, Europeans will be minorities in their own country.
What are you talking about? European Liberals are literally ruining their continent with mass migration and zero border control. They’re destroying the very culture they used to adore. In 30 years, Europeans will be minorities in their own country.
Liberals are the greatest cancer to all societies since its inception. Every nation will plunder when weak minded, virtue signalling cowards (aka liberals) take control of a nation. Scientific fact.
Liberals are the greatest cancer to all societies since its inception. Every nation will plunder when weak minded, virtue signalling cowards (aka liberals) take control of a nation. Scientific fact.
What exactly are these liberal filled nations going to be stealing? Or is my IQ too low to get it?
Liberals are the greatest cancer to all societies since its inception. Every nation will plunder when weak minded, virtue signalling cowards (aka liberals) take control of a nation. Scientific fact.
What exactly are these liberal filled nations going to be stealing? Or is my IQ too low to get it?
Liberals are the greatest cancer to all societies since its inception. Every nation will plunder when weak minded, virtue signalling cowards (aka liberals) take control of a nation. Scientific fact.
What exactly are these liberal filled nations going to be stealing? Or is my IQ too low to get it?
Haven't you heard? It's "theft" when you make those who are wealthy and can actually afford to pay taxes to society, do so. You're a "moocher" if the rich have to pay more than a few percent in taxes to help support the society that gave them the opportunities from which they benefit, helping them to become rich in the first place.
Funny how that works.
It is theft to tax any person of their wealth, regardless of earnings. The rich got richer by lobbying politicians to create laws and regulations to increase their power and limit competition.
Taxing a person when they earn more because of their honest hard work is immoral and stupid. Those who manipulate gov't for personal gain at the expense of the nation is treasonous and should be hung.
What exactly are these liberal filled nations going to be stealing? Or is my IQ too low to get it?
Haven't you heard? It's "theft" when you make those who are wealthy and can actually afford to pay taxes to society, do so. You're a "moocher" if the rich have to pay more than a few percent in taxes to help support the society that gave them the opportunities from which they benefit, helping them to become rich in the first place.
Funny how that works.
It is theft to tax any person of their wealth, regardless of earnings. The rich got richer by lobbying politicians to create laws and regulations to increase their power and limit competition.
Taxing a person when they earn more because of their honest hard work is immoral and stupid. Those who manipulate gov't for personal gain at the expense of the nation is treasonous and should be hung.
Aww, you poor, little, snowflake!!! I had no idea it was "theft" to charge people for services provided by society. Oh, the humanity. What will the fragile rich people ever do!? Hey, I know!!! Maybe we can just tax no one and it will usher in one of those magical, small-government utopia's that we see prospering all around the world.
Snowflake? Lmao. Imbecile.
Gov't run social programs are garbage and always have been. They tax everyone to provide a service not everyone needs. A monopoly is created, ruining what is offered. Name me one monopoly held product or service that does better than allowing the free market to deal with it. You can't.
You poor little snowflake want to tax all Americans so we can cover health costs for obese, lazy, and useless humans that do not contribute to society. It only makes sense that your one of those basement dwelling creatures that results in a net loss to society and leeches off honest hard workers.
It's ok though. I've noticed a trend with liberal cucks loving big gov't because of their inabilities to fend for themselves.
Gov't run social programs are garbage and always have been. They tax everyone to provide a service not everyone needs. A monopoly is created, ruining what is offered. Name me one monopoly held product or service that does better than allowing the free market to deal with it. You can't.
You poor little snowflake want to tax all Americans so we can cover health costs for obese, lazy, and useless humans that do not contribute to society. It only makes sense that your one of those basement dwelling creatures that results in a net loss to society and leeches off honest hard workers.
It's ok though. I've noticed a trend with liberal cucks loving big gov't because of their inabilities to fend for themselves.
Yet all of the most prosperous nations with the highest standards of living have are exactly that - capitalist economies tempered by proper government regulation.
With homogeneous groups of people. Japan? over 95% ethnic Japanese. Scandinavian Countries? Over 90% ethnic indigenous population.
Scandinavian nations are not socialists, rather "compassionate capitalists", as the article refers to it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#36a8019074ad
Gov't run social programs are garbage and always have been. They tax everyone to provide a service not everyone needs. A monopoly is created, ruining what is offered. Name me one monopoly held product or service that does better than allowing the free market to deal with it. You can't.
You poor little snowflake want to tax all Americans so we can cover health costs for obese, lazy, and useless humans that do not contribute to society. It only makes sense that your one of those basement dwelling creatures that results in a net loss to society and leeches off honest hard workers.
It's ok though. I've noticed a trend with liberal cucks loving big gov't because of their inabilities to fend for themselves.
Yet all of the most prosperous nations with the highest standards of living have are exactly that - capitalist economies tempered by proper government regulation.
With homogeneous groups of people. Japan? over 95% ethnic Japanese. Scandinavian Countries? Over 90% ethnic indigenous population.
Scandinavian nations are not socialists, rather "compassionate capitalists", as the article refers to it.
Here in sweden we call it Blandekonomi. Combining Socialist and Capitalist elements. And the homogenous groups of people excuse is as much rubbish as it has always been.
There are things the state does better. Security, Law Enforcement, Justice, Healthcare, and a few other things.
What are you talking about? European Liberals are literally ruining their continent with mass migration and zero border control. They’re destroying the very culture they used to adore. In 30 years, Europeans will be minorities in their own country.
Liberals are the greatest cancer to all societies since its inception. Every nation will plunder when weak minded, virtue signalling cowards (aka liberals) take control of a nation. Scientific fact.
.
.
.
Well I didn't exactly get the impression reading through that reply that you're a Mensa member yourself.
Is there a point you wanted to make with regards to the UN link you posted, because that last sentence was just rambling nonsense. So developed countries with aging populations seek to supplement the workforce via migration, that's pretty common knowledge... not exactly news. How else are you expecting the elderly to be taken care of in the future when there aren't enough nurses to look after them, robots? Or for that matter the numerous other jobs which people don't even want to do right now, let alone 20-30 years from now when there's an increasing shortage of working age people.
Unless you want to keep bumping up the retirement age to the point where you retire when you die, international migration is the only viable solution at present to mitigate the population problem.
Aging populations are an issue that every developed country in the world will face at some point, once standards of living rise and the birth rate goes down. International migration isn't a liberal plot to supplant the native population, destroy a nation's culture, or any other conspiracy theories that right-wingers parrot these days. Rather, it's a method by which a developed country with a declining population can maintain growth, standards of living and a healthy population pyramid. Nobody is in any danger of becoming a minority in their own country, that's simply ridiculous.
@sonicare: Problem isnt the competance of the leaders. Its how stupid your people have become: For us "over the pond" it is painfully obvious that republicans are and have for at least the last 10 years gotten... Well, simply crazy... The words and sentences that come out of their mouth extremely seldom have any basis in reality to the point where they use "factcheckers" as a way to demean opposition. When you are ridiculed for talking fact you know there is something very very wrong with a big portion of your society. I think "education" is the magic word here, but then again republicans understood the value of poorley educated people a long time ago, hence the state of education in your country. If I were you Id move before it goes to shit, though Id say it already has... Do you have children? Are you planning to? How are they going to get educated???
I'd hold on the smugness. The whole Brexit process doesn't exactly lead me to have huge faith in the europeans at this time. Seems like stupid has deep roots on either side of the pond.
There are things the state does better. Security, Law Enforcement, Justice, Healthcare, and a few other things.
I'd have to disagree with security and law enforcement by a long shot. When I worked in private security, we won a contract bid for a small county, costing the taxpayer half as much money, with a response time 4X faster. This is pretty much the norm for private/public contrast for policing in the country. In San Francisco, there is a private firm for security. The result is much shorter, less invasive security procedures, and they were better at identifying contraband.
The issue gets even worse when police and security become entrenched in unions. It can cost the taxpayer over $100,000 to fire an ineffective or detrimental unionized officer. You don't have to worry about that at all with private firms.
As for healthcare, plenty of our neighbours to the north would disagree (it's funny because socialists in this country always point to Canada for effective healthcare). When it comes to R&D, it's not even close when it comes to the private market. The majority of pharmaceutical R&D in the entire world is done in the US.
There are things the state does better. Security, Law Enforcement, Justice, Healthcare, and a few other things.
I'd have to disagree with security and law enforcement by a long shot. When I worked in private security, we won a contract bid for a small county, costing the taxpayer half as much money, with a response time 4X faster. This is pretty much the norm for private/public contrast for policing in the country. In San Francisco, there is a private firm for security. The result is much shorter, less invasive security procedures, and they were better at identifying contraband.
The issue gets even worse when police and security become entrenched in unions. It can cost the taxpayer over $100,000 to fire an ineffective or detrimental unionized officer. You don't have to worry about that at all with private firms.
As for healthcare, plenty of our neighbours to the north would disagree (it's funny because socialists in this country always point to Canada for effective healthcare). When it comes to R&D, it's not even close when it comes to the private market. The majority of pharmaceutical R&D in the entire world is done in the US.
Research which is often done a lot in universities. Overall people in countries with universal healthcare pay less yet get more from their healthcare spending.
granted, the picture doesnt become quite as Rosy, when you factor in for purchasing power.
All while a good chunk of those countries also have a higher life expecancy than the US. Granted there could be factors here playing as well, such as lifestyle choices. But even then, Correlations, and even studies overwhelmingly show that the US would save money by adopting some form of universal health coverage.
I disagree on the Military. PMCs can be more effective, but they are a lot less accountable, and Academi alone has a long history of crimes against humanity.
People are ignorant about just how much basic(dunno the proper English term for it. Ground studies/seeking knowledge) studying is done at universities or in other ways paid for by public. Later used by private companies who develop new treatments or medicine because of it.
I am bit rusty on the details, but MRI used in hospitals would never have happened unless someone discovered NMR(nuclear magnetic resonance). Granted going from A to B here isn't cheap or done over night, but the latter would never have happened unless for the first one. Look at NASA as well and see what they have discovered and how much of it is used today in very different areas.
Yet all of the most prosperous nations with the highest standards of living have are exactly that - capitalist economies tempered by proper government regulation.
With homogeneous groups of people. Japan? over 95% ethnic Japanese. Scandinavian Countries? Over 90% ethnic indigenous population.
Scandinavian nations are not socialists, rather "compassionate capitalists", as the article refers to it.
I mention an economic fact and you reply with race. That just doesn't follow.
I also never once mentioned socialism. That doesn't follow.
This is the problem with the narrow mind of the "conservative", whatever that goofy term even means - they literally see what they want, all made up in their heads. It never fails. Get one to reply to you long enough and eventually it will look like monkeys typing on a keyboard. lol
You mention an economic fact, I mention a cultural fact? They enjoy a high degree of economic freedom and success because they are unicultural, not this multicultural bullshit.
"capitalist economies tempered by proper government regulation." Then what is this?
Sorry child, Cuckservatives and DemocRATS are two sides of the same coin. Both useless parties and idiotic followers.
Don't refer to yourself as a monkey, your IQ is a bit higher than that :( Try to be more positive
@sonicare: I'm curious about your thoughts about steering the Democratic party in your preferred direction rather than importing influence. By engaging in the primary system, whether by voting or volunteering, citizens can have an outsized influence on party direction. Have you given consideration to getting involved in that process?
What are you talking about? European Liberals are literally ruining their continent with mass migration and zero border control. They’re destroying the very culture they used to adore. In 30 years, Europeans will be minorities in their own country.
Liberals are the greatest cancer to all societies since its inception. Every nation will plunder when weak minded, virtue signalling cowards (aka liberals) take control of a nation. Scientific fact.
.
.
.
Well I didn't exactly get the impression reading through that reply that you're a Mensa member yourself.
Is there a point you wanted to make with regards to the UN link you posted, because that last sentence was just rambling nonsense. So developed countries with aging populations seek to supplement the workforce via migration, that's pretty common knowledge... not exactly news. How else are you expecting the elderly to be taken care of in the future when there aren't enough nurses to look after them, robots? Or for that matter the numerous other jobs which people don't even want to do right now, let alone 20-30 years from now when there's an increasing shortage of working age people.
Unless you want to keep bumping up the retirement age to the point where you retire when you die, international migration is the only viable solution at present to mitigate the population problem.
Aging populations are an issue that every developed country in the world will face at some point, once standards of living rise and the birth rate goes down. International migration isn't a liberal plot to supplant the native population, destroy a nation's culture, or any other conspiracy theories that right-wingers parrot these days. Rather, it's a method by which a developed country with a declining population can maintain growth, standards of living and a healthy population pyramid. Nobody is in any danger of becoming a minority in their own country, that's simply ridiculous.
Nothing you mentioned in that statement of yours remotely responds to my statement. I stated Europeans are slowly losing their culture and are being replaced due to population migration. Migrants coming in are bringing in different languages, religions, beliefs, etc. How is this not adding to ethnic Europeans being replaced in their own nations? I can't tell if at this point your ignorant, or just straight shilling.
Our cultures have changed to focus on individuals, selfishness, and promotion of oneself, rather than building a family. This is what is leading to the suicide of our nations. That is what is causing low birthrates.
I genuinely do not think you have a basic understanding of how a nation works bud. Who's going to preserve our way of life? An African speaking Swahili who is looking for a job? An Arabic christian? No, none of these should be allowed to enter our nations. Nice illogical left wing nonsense you keep spewing.
Could not be happier right wing governments are gaining popularity across Europe, time is slowly arriving where big changes will happen :)
Gov't run social programs are garbage and always have been. They tax everyone to provide a service not everyone needs. A monopoly is created, ruining what is offered. Name me one monopoly held product or service that does better than allowing the free market to deal with it. You can't.
You poor little snowflake want to tax all Americans so we can cover health costs for obese, lazy, and useless humans that do not contribute to society. It only makes sense that your one of those basement dwelling creatures that results in a net loss to society and leeches off honest hard workers.
It's ok though. I've noticed a trend with liberal cucks loving big gov't because of their inabilities to fend for themselves.
Yet all of the most prosperous nations with the highest standards of living have are exactly that - capitalist economies tempered by proper government regulation.
With homogeneous groups of people. Japan? over 95% ethnic Japanese. Scandinavian Countries? Over 90% ethnic indigenous population.
Scandinavian nations are not socialists, rather "compassionate capitalists", as the article refers to it.
Here in sweden we call it Blandekonomi. Combining Socialist and Capitalist elements. And the homogenous groups of people excuse is as much rubbish as it has always been.
There are things the state does better. Security, Law Enforcement, Justice, Healthcare, and a few other things.
Did you read the article? It may be a mixed economy, but the government does not intrude with regulations nowhere near the level of US. Homogeneous/uni-cultural nations is not rubbish. It is not a mere coincidence some of the greatest nations have an ethnic group of over 90%. I am not saying that ethnicity is be all, end all. But it does play a big role in the success of nation. Cultures compete throughout history, and they will compete in the future. Always have, always will.
So you're from Sweden? How can you openly lie on forums about homogeneous groups being no argument? https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/113786/muslim-migration-and-rape-statistics-in-europe-opinion/
Or is it because you are too afraid to speak out because your government will harm you? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3477510/Migrant-attacks-conspiracy-hide-truth-Europe-s-liberal-country-Sweden-stopped-citizens-discussing-refugee-influx.html
There are things the state does better. Security, Law Enforcement, Justice, Healthcare, and a few other things.
I'd have to disagree with security and law enforcement by a long shot. When I worked in private security, we won a contract bid for a small county, costing the taxpayer half as much money, with a response time 4X faster. This is pretty much the norm for private/public contrast for policing in the country. In San Francisco, there is a private firm for security. The result is much shorter, less invasive security procedures, and they were better at identifying contraband.
The issue gets even worse when police and security become entrenched in unions. It can cost the taxpayer over $100,000 to fire an ineffective or detrimental unionized officer. You don't have to worry about that at all with private firms.
As for healthcare, plenty of our neighbours to the north would disagree (it's funny because socialists in this country always point to Canada for effective healthcare). When it comes to R&D, it's not even close when it comes to the private market. The majority of pharmaceutical R&D in the entire world is done in the US.
I'm from Canada. Healthcare is not as good as the media makes it sound. Still have to pay for prescription drugs, wait times are absolutely brutal. I have sat in an emergency room for over 6 hours, so I can't imagine the wait for the non emergency rooms. Public Donations are needed to continue supporting healthcare. I don't understand how these left wing nutters do not see this. Centralization of ANYTHING leads to inefficiency, higher prices, and corruption.
I'm from Europe and I'll ask you this: Do you think Macron is a good liberal?
The corruption we see happen in the USA also happens in Europe. It just has a bit of a different form. There are good liberals here, but I'd rather keep them. You have your own already. The only problem you have is, how do they get recognition for their good policies among the Americans who vote? (Not through lies and deceit. I can tell you that much.)
I'm from Canada. Healthcare is not as good as the media makes it sound. Still have to pay for prescription drugs, wait times are absolutely brutal. I have sat in an emergency room for over 6 hours, so I can't imagine the wait for the non emergency rooms. Public Donations are needed to continue supporting healthcare. I don't understand how these left wing nutters do not see this. Centralization of ANYTHING leads to inefficiency, higher prices, and corruption.
Centralization has some benefits as well. Cost/benefit for some healthcare treatments aren't good if decentralized. Centralization allows for more specialization and more experience in those fields without costing an arm and leg. But yeah treatment for a lot of stuff. What one could call common should be decentralized so one can hopefully get some decent care without having to spend half a day driving somewhere. Corruption is a problem with the people filling different positions, not the system itself. Although corruption may seem to be the system some places.
I've spent far amount of waiting in emergency rooms. While it sucks, it sucks more to be the person who gets first line. Their life might be at stake.
I pay for prescription drugs, but there is also a yearly cap. So if you require a lot of them, you don't have to pay for it all. And likely the more you need, smaller chances for having a (good) paying job. And through some prescriptions, like for some allergy medicine here, the cost is reduced from 15$ to 3$ for the same dosage.
@nattydaddy604 said:
With homogeneous groups of people. Japan? over 95% ethnic Japanese. Scandinavian Countries? Over 90% ethnic indigenous population.
Scandinavian nations are not socialists, rather "compassionate capitalists", as the article refers to it.
I don't know the numbers for Sweden and Denmark, but in Norway immigrants make up some 15% of the population. Include their kids born(first gen) in Norway and we are almost at 20%...
Yet all of the most prosperous nations with the highest standards of living have are exactly that - capitalist economies tempered by proper government regulation.
With homogeneous groups of people. Japan? over 95% ethnic Japanese. Scandinavian Countries? Over 90% ethnic indigenous population.
Scandinavian nations are not socialists, rather "compassionate capitalists", as the article refers to it.
Here in sweden we call it Blandekonomi. Combining Socialist and Capitalist elements. And the homogenous groups of people excuse is as much rubbish as it has always been.
There are things the state does better. Security, Law Enforcement, Justice, Healthcare, and a few other things.
Did you read the article? It may be a mixed economy, but the government does not intrude with regulations nowhere near the level of US. Homogeneous/uni-cultural nations is not rubbish. It is not a mere coincidence some of the greatest nations have an ethnic group of over 90%. I am not saying that ethnicity is be all, end all. But it does play a big role in the success of nation. Cultures compete throughout history, and they will compete in the future. Always have, always will.
So you're from Sweden? How can you openly lie on forums about homogeneous groups being no argument?
The reason there are nowhere near as many regulations is because the Unions hold significantly more power than they do in the US. On the books it may seem less regulated, but in reality it is way more complicated than that. I say that as someone who lives here. The reason we have no minimum wage is because the Unions make sure everyone gets a living wage. They are powerful enough to do that.
Those rape statistics is inherently disingenous. If you actually looked at why those rape statistics rose so much you would have known that the main cause was the government redefining what classifies as rape. By using them like that, the one who is lying is... drum rolls... you. how can you lie and misinterpret data like that? How can you be so intellectually dishonest? If you factor in for Economic well being, the difference between ethnicities is pretty small. The problem is that most refugees come here and have little skill or education, which makes them quite impoverished, which in turn leads to crime.
Some of the greatest nations have homogenous ethnicities and cultures, others are very diverse, this is both inevitable due to the fact how nations work. Speaking of which,
India
China
Roman Empire
Arabian Empire
Mongolian Empire
The Spanish Empire
The British Empire
The United States of America
All these are some of the greatest civilizations in history, all of them had a LOT of different ethnicities.
Centralization has some benefits as well. Cost/benefit for some healthcare treatments aren't good if decentralized. Centralization allows for more specialization and more experience in those fields without costing an arm and leg. But yeah treatment for a lot of stuff. What one could call common should be decentralized so one can hopefully get some decent care without having to spend half a day driving somewhere. Corruption is a problem with the people filling different positions, not the system itself. Although corruption may seem to be the system some places.
I fail to see how centralization would result in more specialization and cheaper pricing. Could you elaborate by providing data or breaking down your reasoning?
Centralization minimizes how many different providers there are for healthcare. Because there is less competition, it allows the ones who are providing the care to raise prices, due to lack of different possibilities. This does the opposite, as monopolized industries have little incentive to create higher quality and cheaper products, as no one is threatening their presence. Centralization has its pros and cons, but the cons far outweigh it, as history has demonstrated gov'ts, which have a monopoly on creating laws, have oppressed the most people in history.
I've spent far amount of waiting in emergency rooms. While it sucks, it sucks more to be the person who gets first line. Their life might be at stake.
I have no problem with people who face life threatening issues going first. I am ok with that. The problem is nobody in the emergency room had these conditions, including me. This is the flaw in the system. People do not want to go to regular treating rooms because it could take days to see a doctor, so they cut corners and go to the emergency side, to save an abundance of time. Sure you can blame the people for doing that, but I blame more the system who is inefficient at managing this.
I don't know the numbers for Sweden and Denmark, but in Norway immigrants make up some 15% of the population. Include their kids born(first gen) in Norway and we are almost at 20%...
But even in Norway, there is an influx of crime because of immigrants
The reason there are nowhere near as many regulations is because the Unions hold significantly more power than they do in the US. On the books it may seem less regulated, but in reality it is way more complicated than that. I say that as someone who lives here. The reason we have no minimum wage is because the Unions make sure everyone gets a living wage. They are powerful enough to do that.
Those rape statistics is inherently disingenous. If you actually looked at why those rape statistics rose so much you would have known that the main cause was the government redefining what classifies as rape. By using them like that, the one who is lying is... drum rolls... you. how can you lie and misinterpret data like that? How can you be so intellectually dishonest? If you factor in for Economic well being, the difference between ethnicities is pretty small. The problem is that most refugees come here and have little skill or education, which makes them quite impoverished, which in turn leads to crime.
Some of the greatest nations have homogenous ethnicities and cultures, others are very diverse, this is both inevitable due to the fact how nations work. Speaking of which,
India
China
Roman Empire
Arabian Empire
Mongolian Empire
The Spanish Empire
The British Empire
The United States of America
All these are some of the greatest civilizations in history, all of them had a LOT of different ethnicities.
The reason why the unions hold much more power is because the gov't does not guarantee anything. The union has to fight for it. Government does not interfere with negotiations. If the union is capable of exercising its ability to influence corporations without interference of gov't, that is not socialism.
You accuse me of lying and misinterpreting data, so lets go over it. From what I have read, Sweden passed the "consensual law" in May 2018. Article also states rape was on the rise prior to this change in law. Is this the law you are referring to? The definition of rape has not changed, but rather what is considered to be consent or not. Please provide me evidence indicating once these refugees integrate into your society, they are on par with the native population in terms of crime statistics. If I am ignorant to this, you have every right to call me out. But provide evidence. I want specific data on how economic well being results in much less crime when comparing native population to immigrants or refugees, and how government changed the rape definition.
All those empires you listed were expansionists, and had plenty of rebellions against them because different groups wanted to control their own way of living. As for India and China, I would not list them as one of the greatest nations. If you are referring to military power, sure. But the average Chinese and Indian do not enjoy the level of freedom, success, happiness that Japan, and other homogeneous nations do.
The reason there are nowhere near as many regulations is because the Unions hold significantly more power than they do in the US. On the books it may seem less regulated, but in reality it is way more complicated than that. I say that as someone who lives here. The reason we have no minimum wage is because the Unions make sure everyone gets a living wage. They are powerful enough to do that.
Those rape statistics is inherently disingenous. If you actually looked at why those rape statistics rose so much you would have known that the main cause was the government redefining what classifies as rape. By using them like that, the one who is lying is... drum rolls... you. how can you lie and misinterpret data like that? How can you be so intellectually dishonest? If you factor in for Economic well being, the difference between ethnicities is pretty small. The problem is that most refugees come here and have little skill or education, which makes them quite impoverished, which in turn leads to crime.
Some of the greatest nations have homogenous ethnicities and cultures, others are very diverse, this is both inevitable due to the fact how nations work. Speaking of which,
India
China
Roman Empire
Arabian Empire
Mongolian Empire
The Spanish Empire
The British Empire
The United States of America
All these are some of the greatest civilizations in history, all of them had a LOT of different ethnicities.
The reason why the unions hold much more power is because the gov't does not guarantee anything. The union has to fight for it. Government does not interfere with negotiations. If the union is capable of exercising its ability to influence corporations without interference of gov't, that is not socialism.
You accuse me of lying and misinterpreting data, so lets go over it. From what I have read, Sweden passed the "consensual law" in May 2018. Article also states rape was on the rise prior to this change in law. Is this the law you are referring to? The definition of rape has not changed, but rather what is considered to be consent or not. Please provide me evidence indicating once these refugees integrate into your society, they are on par with the native population in terms of crime statistics. If I am ignorant to this, you have every right to call me out. But provide evidence. I want specific data on how economic well being results in much less crime when comparing native population to immigrants or refugees, and how government changed the rape definition.
All those empires you listed were expansionists, and had plenty of rebellions against them because different groups wanted to control their own way of living. As for India and China, I would not list them as one of the greatest nations. If you are referring to military power, sure. But the average Chinese and Indian do not enjoy the level of freedom, success, happiness that Japan, and other homogeneous nations do.
The reason the unions are so powerful in the first place is BECAUSE of the government favoring them. A lot of it is the result of the Social Democratic party having so much power and influence.
Sweden has been passing laws to redefine and increase rape reporting over the past decade, this is not a recent thing, this has been a gradual ongoing process for a long time. I am not saying they are on par on crime statistics, but when you factor in socioeconomic factors. It removes the majority of it.
Honestly, I really dislike this disingenous discussion regarding these debunked talking points. Because it overlooks the more important issues to discuss in regards to immigration. Swedish immigration policy was not overall good for the country, but the reasons it was bad, is not those that the fear merchants like to sell. It turns what could be an important topic to discuss into a partisan, mud flinging competition that solves nothing.
India, was a scientific and cultural powerhouse, and it is starting to regain its status as economic leader of the world. China has the same advantages. They are some of the greatest nations in the world. There is a reason they are always playable in Civilization. Their contributions to mankind have been phenomenal.
The reason there are nowhere near as many regulations is because the Unions hold significantly more power than they do in the US. On the books it may seem less regulated, but in reality it is way more complicated than that. I say that as someone who lives here. The reason we have no minimum wage is because the Unions make sure everyone gets a living wage. They are powerful enough to do that.
Those rape statistics is inherently disingenous. If you actually looked at why those rape statistics rose so much you would have known that the main cause was the government redefining what classifies as rape. By using them like that, the one who is lying is... drum rolls... you. how can you lie and misinterpret data like that? How can you be so intellectually dishonest? If you factor in for Economic well being, the difference between ethnicities is pretty small. The problem is that most refugees come here and have little skill or education, which makes them quite impoverished, which in turn leads to crime.
Some of the greatest nations have homogenous ethnicities and cultures, others are very diverse, this is both inevitable due to the fact how nations work. Speaking of which,
India
China
Roman Empire
Arabian Empire
Mongolian Empire
The Spanish Empire
The British Empire
The United States of America
All these are some of the greatest civilizations in history, all of them had a LOT of different ethnicities.
The reason why the unions hold much more power is because the gov't does not guarantee anything. The union has to fight for it. Government does not interfere with negotiations. If the union is capable of exercising its ability to influence corporations without interference of gov't, that is not socialism.
You accuse me of lying and misinterpreting data, so lets go over it. From what I have read, Sweden passed the "consensual law" in May 2018. Article also states rape was on the rise prior to this change in law. Is this the law you are referring to? The definition of rape has not changed, but rather what is considered to be consent or not. Please provide me evidence indicating once these refugees integrate into your society, they are on par with the native population in terms of crime statistics. If I am ignorant to this, you have every right to call me out. But provide evidence. I want specific data on how economic well being results in much less crime when comparing native population to immigrants or refugees, and how government changed the rape definition.
All those empires you listed were expansionists, and had plenty of rebellions against them because different groups wanted to control their own way of living. As for India and China, I would not list them as one of the greatest nations. If you are referring to military power, sure. But the average Chinese and Indian do not enjoy the level of freedom, success, happiness that Japan, and other homogeneous nations do.
What did I just read here? In the US unions have been neutered by the republican party starting with reagan and continuing with trump.
The reason there are nowhere near as many regulations is because the Unions hold significantly more power than they do in the US. On the books it may seem less regulated, but in reality it is way more complicated than that. I say that as someone who lives here. The reason we have no minimum wage is because the Unions make sure everyone gets a living wage. They are powerful enough to do that.
Those rape statistics is inherently disingenous. If you actually looked at why those rape statistics rose so much you would have known that the main cause was the government redefining what classifies as rape. By using them like that, the one who is lying is... drum rolls... you. how can you lie and misinterpret data like that? How can you be so intellectually dishonest? If you factor in for Economic well being, the difference between ethnicities is pretty small. The problem is that most refugees come here and have little skill or education, which makes them quite impoverished, which in turn leads to crime.
Some of the greatest nations have homogenous ethnicities and cultures, others are very diverse, this is both inevitable due to the fact how nations work. Speaking of which,
India
China
Roman Empire
Arabian Empire
Mongolian Empire
The Spanish Empire
The British Empire
The United States of America
All these are some of the greatest civilizations in history, all of them had a LOT of different ethnicities.
The reason why the unions hold much more power is because the gov't does not guarantee anything. The union has to fight for it. Government does not interfere with negotiations. If the union is capable of exercising its ability to influence corporations without interference of gov't, that is not socialism.
You accuse me of lying and misinterpreting data, so lets go over it. From what I have read, Sweden passed the "consensual law" in May 2018. Article also states rape was on the rise prior to this change in law. Is this the law you are referring to? The definition of rape has not changed, but rather what is considered to be consent or not. Please provide me evidence indicating once these refugees integrate into your society, they are on par with the native population in terms of crime statistics. If I am ignorant to this, you have every right to call me out. But provide evidence. I want specific data on how economic well being results in much less crime when comparing native population to immigrants or refugees, and how government changed the rape definition.
All those empires you listed were expansionists, and had plenty of rebellions against them because different groups wanted to control their own way of living. As for India and China, I would not list them as one of the greatest nations. If you are referring to military power, sure. But the average Chinese and Indian do not enjoy the level of freedom, success, happiness that Japan, and other homogeneous nations do.
What did I just read here? In the US unions have been neutered by the republican party starting with reagan and continuing with trump.
Log in to comment