Beginnings

Well, I definitely need a place like that. You asked for the opinions of your fellow Americans. In that regard, I can't help you, but maybe someone else will jump on this thread later on.

But as a non-American, I have questions. Jesus Christ do I have questions, and most of them center around, ''What the fuck is going on?''

Afghanistan, for starters. What's the view of the majority of Americans on this situation? I recognize that most consider it a disaster, but what does it mean for Joe Biden's presidency overall? You voted him in as the lesser-evil alternative to Donald Trump but the man's stumbling from crisis to crisis. What do Americans think of their politics going forward? The mid-terms, the 2024 election?

I try to follow both sides of the conversation on social media to escape the dangers of an information bubble. I see that the conservatives are up in arms. They seem to consider this their chance at revenge. But I can't find much about the opinions of liberals. Where's the outrage? Or have I missed it?

And is it true that the airstrike Biden ordered after the attack on Kabul airport, an airstrike he called 'successful', killed American allies, civilians, and three children? Conservatives are all talking about it, but I can't find a single mention anywhere else, so obviously I don't know if this is bullshit or accurate. Would you happen to know more?

In regards to COVID and anti-vaxxers, I really don't know what to tell you. Trust in the American government and American institutions has been eroding since the Pentagon Papers were published in '72, and this is where it's come to. And I don't think how politicians are handling the situation is helping. The more they try to force the issue, the stronger the push-back. And you really can't tell people who look at everything through the prism of their constitutional rights to forget about their constitutional rights for a moment. I can't for the life of me figure out why they seem unable to make a better argument. It's not much different than Biden saying Americans don't need guns because the government's military power is too great to resist. Like that's going to accomplish anything but a spike in gun sales.

Anyway, these are some of my questions and thoughts. Feel free to set me straight.

Best regards,

Jurij

Dagny and I are on the same page. Politically, at least. There will never be a "good" time to get out of this war on terror we've been waging for two decades. In the grand scheme, despite the present uproar, I think the USA is getting away relatively clean. The whole changing hearts and minds thing was destined to fail from the get-go. Because of religion. Because of delusional faith in the afterlife. Therefore, the devil you know and the lesser of two evils should have been considered before the first rocket was launched. Sadaam Hussein and The Taliban are reprehensible regimes (from our western perspective, of course) but they never actually attacked or marginalized OUR way of life. To hear American conservatives rail against the Taliban now, blaming Biden for trying to extricate and end an expensive military occupation, is laughable hypocrisy. Trump wanted the same thing, by the way. Fact is, a lot of Christians (in their hearts and minds, if you will) would like nothing more than to establish a theocratic government that passes biblical judgment upon the citizenry.

Commonwealth sense oughta dictate Covid protocol and gun control and civil rights and a myriad of other issues. But republicans seem to be hell bent on opposing socialism as if the word itself were satanic. Try and tell them that America is already a socialist country --Medicare and Social Security and state-run police, fire, and schooling ARE socialist programs-- and they'll look at you like you're a batshit godless commie!

I'm assuming spear-shake is from the UK. From that assumption, I also assume that his island is basically a not so dissimilar boat. Brexit and yada yada having divided his country as well. Rural vs. Urban distrust. Educated vs. Artless populism. And with a Royal Family to subsidize to boot! I may be naive, but implementing progressive policies seems to me to be the simplest way for a nation to make progress. Inherent racism, however, is the big fidget spinner/shoulder boulder we all loathe to address.

What else can we do but continue to argue? That's the question.

Cheers

Actually, I'm not British. I'm from Slovenia. Spear-shake is misleading, I know.

With regards to getting out of Afghanistan relatively clean... well, I won't speak to that, but it seems to me the shit-show has barely begun. And there might be hell to pay in Europe.

With regards to Republicans and their reactions to anything that can even remotely be characterized as socialism, I couldn't agree more. They seem allergic to it, which is really hurting the country. There are aspects to life in America that I can't wrap my head around.

But you can't deny that there are radical people on the American Left who have lost their way. Slovenia was once part of socialist Yugoslavia. I have ancestors who were murdered by communists. One of them spent the entirety of the Second World War fighting alongside communists to throw out the Nazis and on the last day of the war, his 'comrades' turned around and executed him. So you can understand why I find it mind-boggling to see so many people talk about all-out socialism and communism, as though the 20th century isn't proof enough of how murderously flawed that ideology is. That's why I get nervous to see the rise of identity politics. It's the bourgeoisie vs. the working class all over again, only this time with added dimensions of race/gender/sexual orientation and the rest.

And this is really the root reason why I jumped into this conversation. What the fuck is up with this extremism in America? Socialism doesn't work, okay, everyone knows that (or at least they should). But this cocaine-capitalism of the American right doesn't work either, and I'm sure you two know that far better than I do. The American conservatives keep annoying me, talking about how taxation is theft. It's been proven that what money you don't lose in taxes, you will have to spend paying for private security.

So why is it that no one seems capable of having a rational conversation? Why is it that no one is saying, ''We need to allow the most capable among us enough maneuvering room to create and build so we'll have enough money to provide for the most vulnerable among us.''

You know, middle ground?

Why such levels of antagonism? Because from where I'm standing, you guys really seem to hate each other. And more importantly, how would you say these divides could be bridged?

Slovenia, eh? Well, spear-shake, Luka Doncic just happens to be my favorite basketball player. I mean... I don't really care about the NBA (ever since the Sonics left Seattle) but I DO root for the Dallas Mavericks whenever they're on the television. So... There's that. Whatever that means.

Anyway... What I mean is, competition should be confined to love and sports. Winning the girl and winning the game is an intrinsic part of life relative to hard work, perseverance, and luck. But those parameters should not apply to an individual's ability to feed his family and pursue a livelihood. If we insist on a capitalist system in America, then every citizen should be awarded a stake in the S&P 500. Irregardless of that individual's financial capability to individually invest. Because we're all responsible for the fate of this nation. Regardless of our socio-economic status at birth.

I haven't really thought it all through, and can't quite articulate it, but I think y'all know that I would love it if the world could strike a socio-economic balance between the natural human instinct to wanna conquer and control the 99% and.... The overwhelming reality that relegates 99% of us mere mortals to serving the unnaturally talented one percent.

Wishful thinking, right?  Probably. But the bottom line fact of the matter is that Republicans would like to promote a meritocracy whilst stacking the odds against upward mobility (in order to maintain the status quo of a lily white patriarchy) while the Democrats would like to open up a more level playing field. It's really that simple. And yet the Republicans have managed to dupe a huge portion of the population into thinking that progressive policies will black-magically turn their children into homosexual atheists and eventually spell the end of western civilization.

To which I say: "What exactly was so "civil" about the establishment of western civilization in the first place?"

I know us liberals can get a bit silly when it comes to social justice and whatnot, but even so... The undeniable truth remains. The historical winners of this planet have written a narrative that omits the Golden Rule.

Like I said... I haven't really thought this diatribe through to a good conclusion. But I'm working on it.

Cheers

John Hamler--
How else is anyone to provide for their family, other than through hard work and perseverance? Now does that mean people who aren't capable of working hard should starve? Of course not. But should they receive as much as those who are capable of it? No, they shouldn't. Competence should be rewarded and incentives play a large part. There's a reason why western societies saw an uptick in inventions the second Intellectual Property laws were established.

I agree 99% of mere mortals shouldn't be in service to the talented 1%, but the talented 1% should still be allowed and encouraged to work their magic. Are we going to shackle the most competent people because we don't like how much better they are at their jobs?

And it's really strange to me that you'd consider half your country's population to be a pack of idiots, open to be duped by the Republicans. Don't you see how overly simplistic that is? How dismissive? Especially considering how many Democrat policies are practically aimed at creating an oligarchy where four big corporations fight for their share of the market, in every industry, and everyone else is left excluded. They talk a big game during the campaigns, but in the end, they always stonewall Bernie Sanders and elect someone that's been bought and paid for by the corporations. Of course, it's the same thing with Republicans, but again, it's that you won't admit the problems of your own side that bothers me. How many small businesses have been wiped out in the last two years by Democrat policies, those same policies that made Jeff Bezos so much richer. A fact they'll surely point out on the campaign trail when they promise to fix the very problem they created.

In regards to your comment about the establishment of western civilization, I really don't know what you mean. It was bloody, yeah, but which civilization can claim to have a non-violent beginning? And considering the atrocities being perpetrated around the world at this very moment, I'd say we're doing quite well overall.

John:
If we insist on a capitalist system in America, then every citizen should be awarded a stake in the S&P 500.
Wrong.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
No where in that definition does it say that the country's trade is equally owned by its citizens. You have it confused with Socialism.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
So what you are saying is that capitalism should be replaced by socialism.

John,
Okay, most of your post was pure off the top of your head bullshit.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution coupled with free enterprise is what makes America work. It's true you can be anything you want to be in America.
That raging case of class envy you have going on isn't going to solve anything. You say you don't have the answers, well, I do. Step one: give the middle class the same tax breaks as corporations and increase the minimum wage to a living wage. Step two: make corporations pay their taxes.
Yes, it's just that simple.
My real problem with you is this: you think because you're really good at using a lot of big words in a sentence you can dazzle anyone into believing you know what you're talking about, when you're just shooting stuff out of your ass to see what sticks on the wall. (Yes, that was a mixed metaphor.) Do a little research, for God's sake, before you put your little drummer boy fingers on the keyboard.
And please refrain from using broad sweeping generalizations like behind every fortune is a crime. It's lazy and uninformed and you can do better.

What's wrong with my broad sweeping generalizations, as you call them? Throwing big-shit words at the wall to see what sticks is how we, as individuals without exact shared experience, can try and account for and champion society at-large.

No, it's what YOU do to prove your point when you're too lazy to do research. You throw out a broad sweeping generalization like EVERY, not some, not half, or 90% but EVERY fortune begins with a crime. Something that smacks of class envy and is unknowable. 

What am I supposed to specifically cater to YOUR specifically shitty situation or something? And besides, dagny... YOUR answers, simple as they are, obviously aren't inspiring hearts and minds to change ANYTHING. Let alone the "truth" as you see it.

If you want to have a discussion with me about anything, I expect you to know what you're talking about and not give me your uneducated opinion. And it's not the 'truth' as I see it, it's proof backed up by FACTS.

Your answers, simple as they are, obviously aren't inspiring hearts and minds to change anything...

The answers weren't meant to inspire. Raising the minimum wage to a living wage is an answer. It's not a good answer to those who want to pay their employees the lowest amount they can get away with so they can keep most of their profit.  And since some of that profit goes to politicians campaign funds, congress with have a hard time raising the minimum wage. Having said that, a living wage is more of a possibility now that people have experienced a living wage through enhanced unemployment payments. If enough workers hold out, employers might raise the minimum wage just to get enough employees to keep their businesses going. As for corporations paying their fair share in taxes, it's another long haul and would take a lot of public outrage. Both those solutions may not be inspiring but they're more realistic than your 'take all the money in the country and divide it up equally,' proposal. Bernie might inspire, but he didn't get any results did he?

Nice paragraph about socialism without getting into the details. It's my educated opinion that socialism will never work here. Americans are not about to allow the government to own major corporations. Our government can't handle withdrawing from Afghanistan, let alone running a natural resource corporation. Look at what happened in Venezuela. They nationalized their natural gas industry and precipitated a steady decline by not investing enough back into the industry, funneling money into social programs instead. Also, I don't know any American willing to pay 20-30% of their salary in taxes for free stuff from the government. Oh, you didn't know that's how socialism works? That everyone, rich or poor, would have to pool their tax dollars in order to receive services from the government?

John, it is exhausting for me to keep knocking back your straw man arguments. I think we've reached an impasse here. I think we should agree to disagree. 

PS...I should have warned you before we began this discussion, I got As in debate when I was in school. I learned to think on my feet, pull up memorized examples and to always research before I made an argument. I can be opinionated but I always bow to the facts. I never took this seriously but as a way to exercise my debate muscles, and the small barbs I took at you were irresistibly funny to me, and I always go for the joke. If I really thought I would hurt you, I would have left them out.

John,
Again, I think we should agree to disagree.

Mainly because you refuse to research the plus and negatives of your arguments, you are driven by the fact that socialism, (what you understand of it) is the great equalizer and all encompassing solution to YOUR problems. Instead of repeating myself I am going to make a suggestion. Find an organization that supports your viewpoints and do some actual work to promote them.

Other than that, I got nothing.

BTW a straw man argument is is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat. As such, it is commonplace in a wide variety of situations, such as political debates, journalism, and debates on any controversial topics.
You do this regularly, and it falls apart as soon as I introduce facts, thus the name 'straw man.'

John,
So much for free expression. It seems the only one allowed to express themselves is you. I am not angry nor have I spewed any 'vitriol.' I made a few jokes at your expense. And I think you need to look the word vitriol up. Oh, that's right you don't look anything up. Even when I explain what a straw man argument is, you still don't get it. I am not accusing you of manipulating me, just of not being informed before you post diatribe after diatribe of meaningless rhetoric. You didn't refute one point I made about socialism with facts, yet now you have a socialist agenda.

Now you are afraid our discussions are scaring people off.

Well, I can think of one solution for that.

On socialism: Ever noticed how profits are always private, and losses are always, er... shared? There's only socialism for corporate America: Ride the roads with big trucks, We, the People paid for, but pay no taxes. Not paying living wages (the Federal minimum wage is $ 7.25, for cryin' out loud) means that We, the People are on the hook for food stamps, Medicaid, and what have you.  Paid sick days and holidays, affordable healthcare and education, paid family leave are not socialism.