Support NeoGAF

[luigimario]

I want to try an experiment with you guys.

Our current political climate has become so polarised, so heated, so "Got Damn" (In the words of Noob Noob) toxic.

Each side literally believes the other is trying to destroy their country, trying to destroy their way of life, ultimately, trying to destroy themselves.

So I urge you guys, let's try to empathise with the other side.

I'll start:

I would describe myself as a leftist/progressive.

But I can understand some of the points that the right wing are so passionate about:

Borders: Yeah I get it. I understand the need people have for strong borders. How can you maintain a country, a state, if you don't have strong borders? That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. How can you protect your population, if you don't have defined and strong borders? I can empathise with all these points. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand them.

Trump: Card's on the table, I despise the guy, but to give him credit where it's due, the economy has continued to improve under him, though, with the current trade wars he has initiated it will be interesting to see if it is sustainable. He has also kept alot of the promises to his base, which is kinda refreshing. I feel he kept more promises to his right wing base so far than what Obama did for his left wing base.

Brexit: Staunch remainer, but I can understand why people voted to leave. Big demographic changes can be scary and I understand the resistance behind it. Especially when it comes to the EU where anyone from within the union can practically have permanent residence in the UK, aswell as it's social welfare program. Personally, I believe that immigration can enrich the country with new ideas and new perspectives, but I can understand why other people may be opposed to it.

So c'mon guys, there must be things/ideas from the opposite side that you could empathise with?

 

[NahaNago]

This is a lot harder now that I think about it.

Borders: I can understand people just wanting folks to have a better life wherever they can. I still would like it done legally but I can understand.

Universal health care: I can totally understand why the left would push for it. It was always where is the money going to come from that bothered me but I do love the idea of it.

Equal representation: Being able to see someone who looks like you in a certain position is awesome. I don't think that it should be mandatory that we have certain balance of people in positions but I can see where it shows the opening up of possibilities for folks or the chance to have different point of view on an issue.

 

[pramod]

Universal health care: I'm actually all for it if they can figure out a way to pay for it without bankrupting the nation and not giving it for free to illegals.
Free College: I'm all for it too, if they can pay for it. Again no free college for illegals.
Climate Change: Get China to do their share first and let's talk.

 

[dragonfart28]

We already had an agreement with China for a timeline on emissions reductions.

Not that it will be upheld now since we've slashed a shitload of environmental regulation for no real benefits.

Throw me in the camp that thinks the tax cuts likely provided some economic benefit, even if it was minimal and temporary.

 

[JordanN]

As a libertarian, the only time I take sides with the left is on Climate Change and Palestine/Israel.

My views on Science are consistent, so I'm more willing to believe evidence that shows humans impacting the environment.

I think the U.S spends too much money on Israel. Even though I understand the strategic importance of this (i.e Israel is the only pro-Western and Democratic ally in the region), but I don't think they need $38 Billion. Reinvest that money back in the USA. Also, force Israel to go to the 1967 borders. I think the Palestinians are just as bad, but I also blame Israel for using the "religious" defense to hold onto the West Bank. I would be ok if they left those territories but built a wall around their country to stop future terror attacks.

Everything else though, I still maintain centre to centre-right views. I feel they're still empathetic.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Borders: I understand people not wanting illegal immigrants borders.
Welfare: I can understand the idea of wanting people to go full bootstraps in order to reduce tax burdens.
KKK Marches: As long you aren't personally affected, who cares right?

 

[Eteric Rice]

I think the big problem is more about the extremes of both sides. Somehow Tumblr leaked into the real world and become the left's extremists, and the right has white nationalists and religious nuts as their extremists. It seems to me that both sides now see each other as each party's extremes, rather than your everyday liberal or conservative. The cool headed people of each side aren't loud enough to drown out the nut jobs and have probably run for the hills at this point. The crazies have taken over the asylum and we're all probably going to suffer for it.

 

[pimentel1]

...

 

[DeafTourette]

I don't really have a political ideology as I'm not for politics nor either party. Its against my religious beliefs. But here are my thoughts...

Race: I don't think this country (the US) has nor wants to have an honest AND empathetic discussion on race. I believe all humans are created equal and SHOULD be viewed per character. But we largely aren't.

Healthcare: as someone with health issues and not in the greatest of financial health, I welcome universal healthcare or Medicare for all. It can be paid for with current taxes and with increasing taxes on corporations (cutting them hasn't helped employees make a living wage). And per the Koch Brothers, it would save 2 trillion or thereabouts.


The military: We don't need a "Space Force" and we already have the strongest military in the world. The NDAA is a monstrosity of a spending bill enriching the military industrial complex. The only good thing is that it increases pay for the soldiers.

Tax cuts: it doesn't help the average American and will damage the economy. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It hasn't worked and won't work. Why? Because the heads of companies don't usually pass those savings down to their employees.

A question everyone asks of education and healthcare that you need to be asking for these tax cuts and enormous military spending bills: where is the money going to come from?

 

[iconmaster]

As a conservative:

I realize Trump's a buffoon. Of course he is. I just roll my eyes but for progressives he is probably crazy-making.

 

[Drake]

I'm conservative:

I think climate change is a problem and should not be ignored.

I think we spend way too much on our military. Many European countries enjoy a higher quality of life because they have to spend next to nothing on defense because of our military protection. I'm sick of playing world police. We need to re-invest in our own citizens/country and let these European countries fend for themselves when it comes to defense.

I think government intervention is sometimes needed when it comes to large businesses as some of these corporations can't be trusted.

As much as I like Ben Shaprio I think it would be good for him to experience the bad side of net neturality (which I am in favor of and he is not). Let Verizon, or Time Warner block his site to all their customers and we'll see if he wants government intervention then.

College is way too expensive. It's actually criminal. I don't think it should be free, but the prices now are out of hand. This may be another area where government intervention is needed because the free market doesn't seem to be correcting itself.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

I understand why some people have such a knee jerk reaction and fall down the radical left wing rabbit hole, I don't like racism either and there are some hardcore fucking racists out there, people who don't see black people as anything more than animals, it's some scary stuff.

So I can understand why people look at white supremacist rallies and think the answer is to fight fire with fire, there's someone online who I used to respect who summed it up on his Twitter by stating that while he was skeptical of some aspects of the DSA, he was joining them anyway because "whatever kicks fascists in the dick"

The trouble is responding to radicalism with more radicalism only makes things worse, not better.

 

[King of Foxes]

I've never really thought of myself as left or right, at least not in the American sense. Interested to see if this makes me left right or a nazi

Borders - You need to have strong borders to maintain your own culture

Trump - A bit of an idiot but I don't think his actions warrant the freak outs the media pushes

Health care / University - Should be free for all

People worried about minorities - I get it completely, my country has a 25% minority block and after Ukraine it makes a lot of people nervous

Gay rights - 100% behind it

Trans rights - 100% but I refuse to call you zir, ze or anything like that. My language is a gendered language so thats all you get from me (even when speaking English)

American white supremacy - I'm still confused as to what it is, it mostly seems to me that being proud of your culture or skin as a white person is perceived as bad. But the type that just want to straight up kill minority types is obviously bad, I just get the feeling that everyone not 100% on the left is being labeled a nazi, racist etc for no real reason

Probably a little conservative when it comes to women and sexism, where I live gender roles are still very defined, women must look good all the time, heels dress make up etc or you will never get a man, wife stays home and raises the kids. Girls play with dolls, boys with cars etc. This seems to be accepted by women and men here so it's less of a big deal as everyone is on the same page, im sure I would classified as a major misogynist in America or UK. I don't think women shouldnt vote or are dumber than men, I just think by nature they are better at raising families and looking after kids

 

[Gander]

 

[MC Safety]

I'm all for calling out other countries on their unfair trade policies. I support both subsidies and tariffs in order to help level the playing field.

I would prefer if our monies were spent domestically on infrastructure improvements, the concerted effort to eliminate out of control violence in Baltimore and Chicago, and revamped educational/penitentiary systems.

I believe the borders should be enforced, that Mexico and Central America should not use the United States as their safety valve, and we should not be bullied and/or shamed into a policy that is harmful for the country. We decry exploitation, but have actively encouraged the creation and maintenance of an impermanent, transitory, and powerless labor force.

Taxes can be increased for the creation of a universal health care system that will not fail its citizens in the ways other, similar systems have. We have to have doctors to support the system we create, and we cannot tolerate wait lists for treatments/surgeries not deemed urgent.

The space force is a necessary expansion of our military. In the future, we'll need to protect our satellites, keep the space lanes free, and ensure the safety of the human race from potential threats (think more asteroids than space invaders).

 

[dropkick!]

Borders: I waited in line. Got dropped off the boat during recession. Trying to make ends meet while people without legal paperwork are gaming the system and getting welfare while I don't qualify because I'm legal and I'm working. Screw that. Get back in line. You had your chance with obama and you blew it when you realized you lose benefits from doing the right thing and being legal.

College: Yeah getting free college and all is good, but here's a catch. When college administrations get a well full of government money, they will mismanage shit because they have no incentive to save. I was a student during one of the times the teacher's body went to a strike, and that was horrible. Teacher's wages are already much less compared to someone who pursues their body of work in their respective industry. Do you think competent people in industry will decide to teach when it becomes a socialized system whenthe priority of admins were adding more BS gender admin positions that are paid much more lucrative than the educators themselves?

Healthcare: same issue too. Why would a competent person in the industry that has lots of liability, start to work on a country that requires you to be a doctor AND a insurance lawyer, while also tax the hell out of you because you work overtime 50 to 60 hours a week and some progressive said you are the part of the 10%? I will live a much comfier lifestyle being a shut in neet getting government welfare. Or move out of a hellhole state.

Sorry, its hard to symphatize with people and their ideas when I saw how things are being run, the so-called "oppressed" not being the angels in distress the left has shown, being called a bigot in university for trying to nicely point out slippery slopes, and being a victim myself of stupid economic and social decisions of people.



And then I remembered the Lord has loved me despite myself, and has instructed us to love one another just as He loved us, whether that thing is deserved or not. With this, I ain't patiently waiting for government to help. I'll help others myself, and help, inform, teach, lift them up and give tough love if necessary, just like what God did during those tough times. I will help, but will not be afraid to call out BS at the same time.

(It's much more efficient anyway... my 50 bucks will be much more well spent to help compared to 500 dollars going to tax heheheh).

 

[LegendOfKage]

Borders: Yeah I get it. I understand the need people have for strong borders. How can you maintain a country, a state, if you don't have strong borders? That's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. How can you protect your population, if you don't have defined and strong borders? I can empathise with all these points. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand them.

Trump: Card's on the table, I despise the guy, but to give him credit where it's due, the economy has continued to improve under him, though, with the current trade wars he has initiated it will be interesting to see if it is sustainable. He has also kept alot of the promises to his base, which is kinda refreshing. I feel he kept more promises to his right wing base so far than what Obama did for his left wing base.

Brexit: Staunch remainer, but I can understand why people voted to leave. Big demographic changes can be scary and I understand the resistance behind it. Especially when it comes to the EU where anyone from within the union can practically have permanent residence in the UK, aswell as it's social welfare program. Personally, I believe that immigration can enrich the country with new ideas and new perspectives, but I can understand why other people may be opposed to it.

So c'mon guys, there must be things/ideas from the opposite side that you could empathise with?

I just wanted to quote the first post in this thread, because THIS is what you should be doing. Anything bold is the opinion held by luigimario, and anything underlined is showing understanding and empathy with beliefs that they don't personally agree with. THIS is how this thread is intended to work.

You're being asked to empathize with people you disagree with, and perhaps find some common ground. It's an important goal in any community discussion, and some of you aren't approaching this with the same level of respect.

This isn't a thread asking why you feel the way you do. While there might be a part of that, the important request here is empathy and understanding. If you couldn't underline much of your own posts using the same qualifications, you're missing the point of this thread, and missing a great opportunity for some positivity in an increasingly negative ongoing discussion.

I'll be sure to to contribute to the thread myself a bit later, but I wanted to point that out.

 

[It's Jeff]

Interesting exercise, I like it. The political love tester has me libertarian left, but I've got plenty of stances that don't really concur with that - so I'll make the best arguments I can for things I normally side against.

Borders - As much as it makes sense to maintain security and accountability with strong borders, economically it makes more sense to forget about it. Our population growth isn't negative, but it's trending downward and we're not going to fix that by having more children. Immigrants, legal or otherwise need food and diapers which creates more jobs and grows the economy.

Military - So much of our economy is tied to our military being such a mammoth employer. Ethics aside, carve it up and you're indirectly gutting our economy.

Healthcare - competition leads to innovation. Innovation when privatized, although not in the current legal cartel form we've allowed, leads to better services at lower costs. If we have the stones to make this an actual competitive market, as it should be, socialized medicine isn't necessary and would be inferior. Look at the margins of auto insurance vs. medical - that's a legitimately competitive market.

Transgender relationship to healthcare - identification of Gender Dysphoria as an illness for the purpose of treatment is morally wrong. The implication that follows by including it in the DSM suggests that it's a disease or undesirable - which is completely antithetical to acceptance. Treatment, by it's very nature, suggests that something is wrong with the individual in the first place.

Anthem kneeling - This movement is taking attention away from the sport, period. Longtime viewers have made it clear that they don't want politics in their entertainment and football players are forgetting that their first responsibility is to the fans. They buy the tickets to the games, they pay for parking and concessions, and if they say to knock it off that's the final word. When the fans ask the players to turn the field into a soapbox, do it. Players, you exist because of them so show the proper decorum and get back to work.

This is harder than I thought it would be.

 

[petran79]

Regarding border control, root out corruption in the custom officers and border patrol police. They are part of the trafficking system as well

 

[DeafTourette]

I just wanted to quote the first post in this thread, because THIS is what you should be doing. Anything bold is the opinion held by luigimario, and anything underlined is showing understanding and empathy with beliefs that they don't personally agree with. THIS is how this thread is intended to work.

You're being asked to empathize with people you disagree with, and perhaps find some common ground. It's an important goal in any community discussion, and some of you aren't approaching this with the same level of respect.

This isn't a thread asking why you feel the way you do. While there might be a part of that, the important request here is empathy and understanding. If you couldn't underline much of your own posts using the same qualifications, you're missing the point of this thread, and missing a great opportunity for some positivity in an increasingly negative ongoing discussion.

I'll be sure to to contribute to the thread myself a bit later, but I wanted to point that out.

Blimey... You're right. I'll add my own later after I get on my way to work in the morning.

 

[JordanN]

Interesting exercise, I like it. The political love tester has me libertarian left, but I've got plenty of stances that don't really concur with that - so I'll make the best arguments I can for things I normally side against.

Borders - As much as it makes sense to maintain security and accountability with strong borders, economically it makes more sense to forget about it. Our population growth isn't negative, but it's trending downward and we're not going to fix that by having more children. Immigrants, legal or otherwise need food and diapers which creates more jobs and grows the economy.

I object to using immigrants as an answer to population decline for my own empathic reasons:

1. Brain drain. No one seems to ask, why are we letting the best people from 3rd world countries move to our countries instead of staying behind and fixing theirs? We then wonder why are these countries suffering so badly but if the Nigerian or Indian immigrant wants to be a doctor in a Western country, why not let them be doctors in their own countries?

2. Competition against natives. When immigrants come here, guess who they are taking jobs from? Again, if someone from Nigeria comes to Canada to become a doctor and gets it, why does the Canadian who was born here first and wanted to be a doctor has to compete against someone who was not born here? Especially if they might be willing to work for cheap wages that the native citizens cannot afford or want to drop to the same level.

3. These same countries already have problems at home. Why do immigrants get priority over a homeless person who was born in the country first? Or an unemployed person?

4. Changing demographics = change in culture. Look at Lebanon which use to be a Christian majority country. Today, it's now majority muslim. People get upset whenever I point this out, but there is a high correlation that each ethnic or religious group act in their own interests or that bringing in a foreign group will often result in "enclaves" being formed which are act independently from the rest of the country. Having strict immigration is the only way to preserve's one culture from the direct threat of a new majority being able to control the laws and institutions.

5. In regards to children/population growth, the trend is actually happening worldwide. The richer a nation gets, the more people have free time and thus less child rearing. Immigration alone wont correct that paradox, unless you actually want a nation to get poorer.

6. Overpopulation. Even though you can always find empty land, where do you think most people want to live and work? The big cities offer more career opportunities than rural cities. But these cities are already packed as it is.
Unless we're bringing immigrants to explicitly grow rural areas, there isn't actually a law stopping them from moving elsewhere and contributing to congestion.

 

[Relativ9]

I'd like to be able to describe myself as a centrist, but in today's political climate I'm definitely right-leaning, so here goes:

Welfare programs: I come from a welfare state and has seen it work wonders for it (Norway), but it has a small population and a massive GPD. That said I can sympathise with the desire to help the weakest in society, especially when you consider the inherent instability and violence to large an income inequality consistently leads to. That said ethically I believe in earning your keep and being productive, I'm fine with helping people help themselves, but if you help them and they squander it they're holding us back and need to be left behind.

Defence/military spending: From an idealistic standpoint I'm totally behind just keeping a minimal standing force for a military just for defence. Unfortunately, I also know that dictators, despots and rouge groups around the world don't subscribe to the same ideology and are willing and able to torture and exterminate innocents. We live in a global society and what happens in one part of the world affects the other, militaries need budgets for this. In this case, I'm not talking about the US perspective as military spending has definitely run amok there, but I'd like European nations to at least spend the 2% GDP requirement from Nato (which we currently don't).

Taxes: The progressive tax makes sense if you believe fairness is about people "feeling" the same amount of loss or gain, and from an economic standpoint there's very little reason to stop using it. It lightens the load on the weakest in society and those that won't even notice have to carry a heavy burden. It's the same as my philosophy on welfare, I think it's necessary but also fundamentally unethical. How something feels is irrelevant, x dollars vs x dollars, if those to values aren't the same for everyone it's not a fair system.

Climate change: On this one, I'm almost wholly on the left side, climate change is real, we have to adapt and improve and change the way we live and consume to survive. Personally, I'm a fan of decreasing population centres where more people live off the land and frugally, reducing our population by having fewer children and cutting off the sickly dependancy the west has on consumerism. However, I also believe in fundamental human rights and freedoms and don't think you can force any of these things on anyone, thus I don't believe we will succeed in changing our way of life in a non-destructive way. Instead, I think billions will die in droughts, famines, natural disasters, coastal cities disappearing and wars for resources. Despite this, I believe we shouldn't sacrifice individual rights even if it could prevent such a horrible outcome.

LGBT rights: I sympathise with the LGBT community and that they just want to be treated like everyone else, if there was a magic button that gave them acceptance and respect worldwide I'd press it. I don't think anyone's personal life choices affect mine at all and I'm not religious so I have no problem with any of that. However, just as I respect their right to live their lives as they see fit, I respect the right of bigots to live their lives as they see fit. This means that if someone wants to not make a cake for a gay wedding, even though I think they're wrong, I have to allow them to not make that cake. Similarly, I don't believe in forcing priests (some who literally think they'll burn in hell for it) to marry two people of the same sex, but if the couple can find a priest that has no problem with it then I'm all for it.

Abortion: Probably actually far-left here. If the baby can not survive outside of the womb it's a parasite on the body, and if the mother for whatever reason wants to get rid of it she should be allowed to do so. I'll probably lose a massive amount of respect and loathe that person, but it comes back to the issue of personal freedoms for me.

Borders: Fundamentally immigration is good. Immigration and the mixing of cultures lead to increased genetic diversity and cultural appropriation (which I believe is also good, cultural purity is bullshit). This is what made the US such a powerhouse nation more than anything else. But the numbers have to be controlled and the flow of people have to be advantageous for the host nation, not just the immigrants. For example: currently, a lot of immigrants are refusing to move to tiny rural villages far north in Norway because they believe they'll be separated from their countrymen (living in the slums of Oslo) too much. Too fucking bad I say, we need more people in those villages and we have too many in Oslo. This wouldn't be a problem if they bought their own homes, but it's social housing so my philosophy is to take what you're offered or starve on the street.

 

[Dunki]

Honestly I do not know in what line I would put myself in many aspects I am more conservative and in others I am more left

Borders: I get that people want a better life I also want one even living in a Country like Germany. But to maintain our stability level of cultural progress, economical wealth etc you can not open the gates...

Trump: I think he is a stupid little child but he also is very good in foreign politics. Aggressive no doubt but he changes the world for sure.


Welfare: As someone from a welfare state I get that people want it but I also want them to understand that there will be also a drastic change. Which means a lot more taxes, more waiting times for appointments surgery etc. People make it like it is the all inclusive solution but it is not. Would I want to miss it? No of course not.

Climate change: It is happening and everyone who thinks it does not change our world needs to read some educational books from school.

Taxes: Taxes are great but if you have to pay 43% of your income a lot is lost. In Germany you work basically 6 months for free because of it

LGBT rights that is the easiest one . Everyone should be treated equally no if or but. But we also should acknowledge that there are people who are against it. If these people do not hurt anyone with this it should be fine just to ignore them and not trying to "kill" them on social media or elsewhere.

Abortion: This is a tough one. I am not believing in God or some bullshit and I think a women should have the right for an abortion when the child is sick, rape crime, too young etc. But I also think in a relationship they should go to a specialist first to talk about it. When the partner wants to keep the baby for example. Talk about it give pros and cons, talk about your fears etc. maybe they can find a way to both be happy. Also this goes for the opposite as well. In a relationship the man also should have some sort of influence and if he never wanted this child did protect himself etc he should be able to go out without paying child support for his whole life. here we need to find a middle ground IMO. There is no clear YES or no Answer for me.

 

[Michele]

Trump: I don't really care for him, I'm not in America. But the recent events surrounding him shocks and surprises me a lot.

 

[It's Jeff]

I object to using immigrants as an answer to population decline for my own empathic reasons:

1. Brain drain. No one seems to ask, why are we letting the best people from 3rd world countries move to our countries instead of staying behind and fixing theirs? We then wonder why are these countries suffering so badly but if the Nigerian or Indian immigrant wants to be a doctor in a Western country, why not let them be doctors in their own countries?

2. Competition against natives. When immigrants come here, guess who they are taking jobs from? Again, if someone from Nigeria comes to Canada to become a doctor and gets it, why does the Canadian who was born here first and wanted to be a doctor has to compete against someone who was not born here? Especially if they might be willing to work for cheap wages that the native citizens cannot afford or want to drop to the same level.

3. These same countries already have problems at home. Why do immigrants get priority over a homeless person who was born in the country first? Or an unemployed person?

4. Changing demographics = change in culture. Look at Lebanon which use to be a Christian majority country. Today, it's now majority muslim. People get upset whenever I point this out, but there is a high correlation that each ethnic or religious group act in their own interests or that bringing in a foreign group will often result in "enclaves" being formed which are act independently from the rest of the country. Having strict immigration is the only way to preserve's one culture from the direct threat of a new majority being able to control the laws and institutions.

5. In regards to children/population growth, the trend is actually happening worldwide. The richer a nation gets, the more people have free time and thus less child rearing. Immigration alone wont correct that paradox, unless you actually want a nation to get poorer.

6. Overpopulation. Even though you can always find empty land, where do you think most people want to live and work? The big cities offer more career opportunities than rural cities. But these cities are already packed as it is.
Unless we're bringing immigrants to explicitly grow rural areas, there isn't actually a law stopping them from moving elsewhere and contributing to congestion.

1. The major problem I have with brain drain as a counter argument is that it completely ignores the desires of the individual. It's also one of the most important indicators that your society has some work to do. If people are leaving, learning, and not returning, your society better figure that out and fast. Blaming people that leave is cutting off the most important feedback. It's the same reason people like to blab about leaving the States but never actually do. When they're actually bailing, your government better get that ass in gear.

2. Why are native citizens somehow entitled to those jobs? It's a capitalist society - you want the most qualified person at the lowest cost. If you hold the opposite to be true and oppose any and all outsourcing, then that makes sense. If not, that's an arbitrary line in the sand.

3. Not an immigration issue, that's a local government concern. How your elected officials prioritize care between citizens doesn't reflect upon immigrants leaving one place for another.

4. The presumption here is that culture needs to be preserved or that one is superior to the other. The issue is that it implies that the existing culture isn't subject to instituting their own barbarism and that incoming cultures want to change the laws. It assumes facts not entered into evidence.

5. The average American is poorer than he was 35 years ago and that's not changing any time soon. That's unrelated to immigration. I can get you the graph of productivity versus wage growth but we've all seen it. American unemployment is around 4%. That's a flat out labor shortage. The advantage should decisively be in favor of labor, but it's not. The issue is that both parents of the family have to work more hours to have less real income than their parents. Would that encourage a family to have more or less children? Japan, for example, is highly xenophobic and has terrible population growth. No immigration, no money for kids. There's a reason they've been in a recession since the late 1980's... they can't grow their way out of it. Kudos to them for staying ethnically pure; it's cost them their entire presence on the world stage in three short decades.

6. Congestion isn't a concern. A centralized population is a good thing. Maintaining roads and services for three homes and a barn in the country is wasteful and you get a hell of a lot more bang for your buck in the city. Rural areas cover 97 percent of our occupied land but only 20 percent of the population lives on it. That's a waste, and overpopulation is a myth. The United States alone has the agricultural resources and efficiency to feed every mouth on this planet. They don't, but they could.

 

[CatLady]

Abortion: I'm strongly pro choice and not at all religious. I've always felt if you're against abortions, don't get one. But I can understand that some people particularly religious people want to prevent others from obtaining abortions because the feel it's killing.

Trump: Not a fan or someone I would vote for, but I can accept why people who felt forgotten & maligned would vote for & support him. I also believe the vast majority of his supporters are NOT Nazis, racists or White Supremacists.

 

[luigimario]

There have been some really great responses here, good to see.

I want politics to get back some of its dignity and decorum.

Remember the 2008 presidential election?
A woman came up to McCain at a rally and said, "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's not, he's not — he's an Arab." Her comment prompted McCain to immediately shake his head and take the microphone from her.
"No ma'am," McCain said. "He's a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign is all about."
McCain continued to defend Obama during the event even as his supporters voiced their surprise in the background.

"He is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as Pf resident," McCain said. "If I didn't think I'd be one heck of a better President I wouldn't be running, and that's the point. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, I will respect him. I want everyone to be respectful, and let's make sure we are. Because that's the way politics should be conducted in America."

I'm not even a fan of John McCain, but in the spirit of the thread, let's try to emulate him, and bring our political discourse back to this.

 

[JordanN]

1. The major problem I have with brain drain as a counter argument is that it completely ignores the desires of the individual. It's also one of the most important indicators that your society has some work to do. If people are leaving, learning, and not returning, your society better figure that out and fast. Blaming people that leave is cutting off the most important feedback. It's the same reason people like to blab about leaving the States but never actually do. When they're actually bailing, your government better get that ass in gear.

2. Why are native citizens somehow entitled to those jobs? It's a capitalist society - you want the most qualified person at the lowest cost. If you hold the opposite to be true and oppose any and all outsourcing, then that makes sense. If not, that's an arbitrary line in the sand.

3. Not an immigration issue, that's a local government concern. How your elected officials prioritize care between citizens doesn't reflect upon immigrants leaving one place for another.

4. The presumption here is that culture needs to be preserved or that one is superior to the other. The issue is that it implies that the existing culture isn't subject to instituting their own barbarism and that incoming cultures want to change the laws. It assumes facts not entered into evidence.

5. The average American is poorer than he was 35 years ago and that's not changing any time soon. That's unrelated to immigration. I can get you the graph of productivity versus wage growth but we've all seen it. American unemployment is around 4%. That's a flat out labor shortage. The advantage should decisively be in favor of labor, but it's not. The issue is that both parents of the family have to work more hours to have less real income than their parents. Would that encourage a family to have more or less children? Japan, for example, is highly xenophobic and has terrible population growth. No immigration, no money for kids. There's a reason they've been in a recession since the late 1980's... they can't grow their way out of it. Kudos to them for staying ethnically pure; it's cost them their entire presence on the world stage in three short decades.

6. Congestion isn't a concern. A centralized population is a good thing. Maintaining roads and services for three homes and a barn in the country is wasteful and you get a hell of a lot more bang for your buck in the city. Rural areas cover 97 percent of our occupied land but only 20 percent of the population lives on it. That's a waste, and overpopulation is a myth. The United States alone has the agricultural resources and efficiency to feed every mouth on this planet. They don't, but they could.

1. As long as borders exists, the desire of an individual to move to another state is a privilege and not a right. And it's true that if people are leaving a country in mass, that there's an issue with government. But it's a bit naive to believe that when everyone is leaving, the country is expected to recover. Where are the replacement doctors going to come from? Or the engineers? It perpetuates a cycle of poverty since anyone who could actually do the job has left.
Regarding why don't people leave the U.S when they say it. The U.S itself is already on top. The people are exaggerating whenever they think a U.S president is a dictator or a fascist state because their quality of life hasn't dropped (or at least, not any worse than the surrounding countries like Mexico).

2. I have issues with outsourcing too. And why are native citizens entitled to those jobs? Loyalty. They're the ones who were born into the system and the first to pay taxes. They may have also had ancestors who contributed to the country being birthed in the first place. So it seems kinda dickish to not want your own citizens succeed, by sweeping them under the bus and catering to foreigners. Using this same logic, it also revolves around trust. Why should the native citizens begin to care or even like their country if they're the ones being serviced last? To keep the peace, I wouldn't want to stir up harsh feelings being native citizens and a huge amount of foreign labor pouring in.

3. Maybe not per se, but if the goal of immigration is to boost a population, the government is still putting resources and time into picking from a foreign pool, as opposed to focusing them entirely on the local population.
Refugees or illegal immigrants aren't coming here with loads of cash. The government is the one that has to make accommodations for them or with illegals, they take from the system first before giving back.

4. Why does cultural preservation imply superiority? I don't really like religion but my Lebanon example still shocks me that the world lost the only Christian majority country in the Middle East. Given that Christians are subject to more persecution living under a Muslim or Jewish majority, don't you think it's a setback that there is no longer a place in the Middle East for Christians to call home?

Christians in the Syrian conflict are currently at high risk, but do you believe any government is prioritizing saving them?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...stians-uk-refugees-asylum-seekers-Bright-Blue

The melting pot idea presumes too much about human nature. That there is no tribalism or everyone gets along perfectly. But I listed enclaves that show the opposite.
In Vancouver for example, there are now several battles over language laws. While Canada's official languages are English & French, the Vancouver area has increasingly seen a wave of Chinese immigration.
Do you think it's fair that Canadians should have to now have to learn a 3rd language, which now leads to a build up of tensions?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...nese-advertisement-english-richmond-1.4490724
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/15/chinese-signs-west-vancouver-richmond_n_5586552.html

5. I'll get back to you on this point.

6. From your above point, you mention people are having to work more and are poorer. Using this information, how are cities suppose to be better when housing costs a lot more than the suburbs?
Isn't this the cycle of where the poverty is coming from? And when you throw immigration into the mix, who is now being forced to compete for the same housing space?
In Canada, the huge of influx of immigration to Vancouver has made the housing market unaffordable to people that were born there. Yet go back 10 ~ 15 years ago and that wasn't the case.
I'm being empathetic when I say native citizens should be protected from being priced out from their own countries. The millionaires from another country can move in and buy up everything.
When they control everything, what are the native citizens suppose to do but keeping working harder while being demographically replaced?

 

[It's Jeff]

1. As long as borders exists, the desire of an individual to move to another state is a privilege and not a right. And it's true that if people are leaving a country in mass, that there's an issue with government. But it's a bit naive to believe that when everyone is leaving, the country is expected to recover. Where are the replacement doctors going to come from? Or the engineers? It perpetuates a cycle of poverty since anyone who could actually do the job has left.
Regarding why don't people leave the U.S when they say it. The U.S itself is already on top. The people are exaggerating whenever they think a U.S president is a dictator or a fascist state because their quality of life hasn't dropped (or at least, not any worse than the surrounding countries like Mexico).

2. I have issues with outsourcing too. And why are native citizens entitled to those jobs? Loyalty. They're the ones who were born into the system and the first to pay taxes. They may have also had ancestors who contributed to the country being birthed in the first place. So it seems kinda dickish to not want your own citizens succeed, by sweeping them under the bus and catering to foreigners. Using this same logic, it also revolves around trust. Why should the native citizens begin to care or even like their country if they're the ones being serviced last? To keep the peace, I wouldn't want to stir up harsh feelings being native citizens and a huge amount of foreign labor pouring in.

3. Maybe not per se, but if the goal of immigration is to boost a population, the government is still putting resources and time into picking from a foreign pool, as opposed to focusing them entirely on the local population.
Refugees or illegal immigrants aren't coming here with loads of cash. The government is the one that has to make accommodations for them or with illegals, they take from the system first before giving back.

4. Why does cultural preservation imply superiority? I don't really like religion but my Lebanon example still shocks me that the world lost the only Christian majority country in the Middle East. Given that Christians are subject to more persecution living under a Muslim or Jewish majority, don't you think it's a setback that there is no longer a place in the Middle East for Christians to call home?

Christians in the Syrian conflict are currently at high risk, but do you believe any government is prioritizing saving them?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...stians-uk-refugees-asylum-seekers-Bright-Blue

The melting pot idea presumes too much about human nature. That there is no tribalism or everyone gets along perfectly. But I listed enclaves that show the opposite.
In Vancouver for example, there are now several battles over language laws. While Canada's official languages are English & French, the Vancouver area has increasingly seen a wave of Chinese immigration.
Do you think it's fair that Canadians should have to now have to learn a 3rd language, which now leads to a build up of tensions?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...nese-advertisement-english-richmond-1.4490724
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/07/15/chinese-signs-west-vancouver-richmond_n_5586552.html

5. I'll get back to you on this point.

6. From your above point, you mention people are having to work more and are poorer. Using this information, how are cities suppose to be better when housing costs a lot more than the suburbs?
Isn't this the cycle of where the poverty is coming from? And when you throw immigration into the mix, who is now being forced to compete for the same housing space?
In Canada, the huge of influx of immigration to Vancouver has made the housing market unaffordable to people that were born there. Yet go back 10 ~ 15 years ago and that wasn't the case.
I'm being empathetic when I say native citizens should be protected from being priced out from their own countries. The millionaires from another country can move in and buy up everything.
When they control everything, what are the native citizens suppose to do but keeping working harder while being demographically replaced?

1. I'll pretend to be a civil engineer for a second because I have no expertise in the subject - but that's on each society's individual deficits to identify their weaknesses and address them. It's really going to vary from country to country, so I can't specifically say do this or do that. I'll give you an example. I'm living in Colorado Springs, which is about an hour away from Denver. We're the 40th most populated city in the United States. That's more than Miami, Oakland, or Atlanta. We're running low on professional sports teams, theme parks, and aquariums. Why? All of that stuff is in Denver... and they're not much bigger than we are. In the past 20 years, local government has been working to bring theater here, using the land that we have that Denver doesn't and expanding our universities to diversify what was an engineering and nursing school to a lot of LAS degrees and studies. It's working. The college I graduated from in 2007 has quadrupled in size and isn't stopping. It's changing the local culture, and for the better! I was too sleepy to go, but my friends invited me to go axe throwing with hipsters yesterday. Would never have happened even 10 years ago. It's a local example, sure. But on the large scale, what you're suggesting is basically only allowing so many people to travel to Denver and kicking the rest back - when in the end, it's the free competition that's made both places better.

2. If you've got an issue with outsourcing, you don't have to explain anything else. Every one of your sentiments speaks against that practice and if you're cool with higher prices but equally higher pay, we're on the level here.

3. Nope, most immigrants rarely have much cash on hand. They're also great for the economy as a whole because they're spending the money they have. Look, Jeff Bezos and I really only need one cell phone and one refrigerator each. Samsung makes more money by selling to a family of four than one Bezos. Your overall economy improves with more people buying more things. The faster a government can naturalize citizens, the better. It doesn't have to take away from one to give to the other; all boats can rise with the tide.

4. I'll have to think on this. I've got an ideological hang up on religion governing state policy in any form. My bias may not leave me fair judgment on this point. Regarding language, the United States doesn't have an official language. We manage. Failure to adopt the local language ultimately harms the immigrant more than society at large. The drive for upward social mobility corrects this issue nine times out of ten.

5. Sounds good.

6. Oy vey, this is a complicated one to break apart. Poverty is about as complex as it gets. We can get into that, but that's another big ball of wax if you want. The key point of housing costs - that's something I can address. This is a trade-off that most people don't want to, nor feel they should be forced to face. It's supply and demand, that's all. Everybody wants to live on Manhattan, but that's a seven mile island with eight million people already on it. It's going to cost more. You get a lot more house in Colorado for the price of California. You get a hell of a lot more house in Texas than you do in Colorado. The notion that I should have this much house, in this location, and the government should keep people out to keep it the same is the antithesis of good business.

I'll argue, especially for the case of Vancouver that selling homes as investments to foreign citizens needs to be evaluated. If the purchaser is subject to property AND income tax, that's fine. It's better than fine because you gain all the financial benefits while assuming none of the liability of care. As it stands, your average Canuck is taking the pipe on this one.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I'll try a broad one:

I think Trump is a racist, sexist, damaged person who views ignorance as strength. If any of my acquaintances were like him, I'd never want to spend time with them. I also believe that the founding fathers would be outraged if they knew a demagogue like him reached the Presidency. I believe his Presidency is highly dangerous for people who have historically struggled to make their voice heard.

Having said that, I don't like the counter-narrative that we should only elect career politicians with tons of experience. Statesmanship has its place, but when it becomes part of a bureaucratic machinery, it tends to systemize many bugs: our overly complicated tax law, our broken immigration policy, even the misuse of our police force can be associated with experienced, career politicians doing things the way they've always been done.

Now, does that mean Trump can help those problems? Probably not because I don't believe he has a clear vision and he's too easily swayed by ego, so in the end lobbyists can preserve the poor existing systems and keep them in place. But I think we need to understand the appeal and potential value of a true "outsider." If not for yourself, then at least to understand the voters who are drawn in by that phenomenon.

 

[Christopher]

I'm a very hard right on a lot of things except gay marriage....who cares?

 

[Astral Dog]

•Borders: i understand the need for strong borders and order, all countries have limits and there is a legal process all citizens must pasd, despite lots of mexicans helping the economy and going to US for a better life, and the country standing for freedom and all that.

However, splitting families, taking children, returning them to their parents with obvious psychological issues, some of them dying, and even news blaming the kids themselves that is a sign of a corrupt and incompetent government.empathic me thinks those kids deserved better, illegals or not

 

[PonyStation4]

•Borders: i understand the need for strong borders and order, all countries have limits and there is a legal process all citizens must pasd, despite lots of mexicans helping the economy and going to US for a better life, and the country standing for freedom and all that.

However, splitting families, taking children, returning them to their parents with obvious psychological issues, some of them dying, and even news blaming the kids themselves that is a sign of a corrupt and incompetent government.empathic me thinks those kids deserved better, illegals or not

The problem is that most children are separated from their parents during the journey, they're trafficked across the border and are routinely raped along the way. Many Mexicans are unaware how dangerous the journey is, because no one is made aware of it.

Keeping the kids closed off seems inhumane, but imo is the best way to go about it until people they came with are properly vetted. I think the last statistic had it as 20% of children were found to come with their actual parents. Most come over as victims, especially females. The worst thing to happen is of the children returned back to the traffickers

 

[LegendOfKage]

I'm a somewhat right-leaning but considerably libertarian individual. I believe in small government (which neither political party seems to anymore), personal freedom, and not being judgmental or hateful of people who think differently.

Feminism - I consider myself an anti-feminist, but only in terms of the modern direction of the ideology. I'm not opposed to people who consider themselves feminists, and we often have a fair amount of common ground.

It's actually really easy for me to empathize with feminists, because for years I considered myself one. I dropped the label as I dropped all self-identifying support of ideology, but who doesn't want gender equality? Everyone should. Any man should want every opportunity for their wives, or mothers, or daughters that they have. No one should feel limited or be limited by their gender in any way.

Guns - There are two sides of the gun control debate, and they both care about saving lives. Anti-gun advocates want to save lives by decreasing the likelihood of being shot, and pro-gun advocates want to save lives by increasing the ability of the weak to defend themselves from the powerful.

I land on the pro gun side of things for a number of reasons, but of course I can empathize with the families of gun violence victims. Especially if I had no strong feelings about guns one way or another, it would be very reasonable to find myself anti-gun if I knew someone who died from being shot. Wow is there ever a lot of bad-faith and anger on both sides of the debate, though.

Trump - I don't like Trump. I don't like that he's so insulting to people he disagrees with, I don't like that he cheated on his wife, and I don't like that he refuses to denounce and alienate the extremists of his supporters.

At the same time, I'm very happy he's appointing supreme court justices that should uphold the constitution, instead of trying to legislate from the court. And despite me hating his behavior, I have to admit that I'm impressed he managed to win an election with that strategy. Forget "grab her by the pussy" over a decade ago, which he's apologized for and distanced himself from. The man publicly called his Republican primary opponent a pussy, managed to win the primary election, and now he's president of the united states. That's impressive. He made himself stand out from the crowd, and it worked.

Illegal Immigration - There's nothing that makes me feel comfortable about anything we do here. On one side, the idea of blindly accepting people into the country who do not speak the language, and can somehow still make use of government assistance programs seems like formula for disaster. Even Canada was revealed recently to be all talk about the subject. Nobody can properly handle the type of illegal immigration America has been dealing with, and Obama deported loads of illegal immigrants. People only associate it with Trump because he associated it with himself.

At the same time, how could you not be sympathetic to these people? Mexico is so screwed up when compared to even 15 or 30 years ago. If I were in their shoes, I'm sure I'd be doing the exact same thing. I knew a British guy who entered the US legally, and it cost him most of his life savings. It's very expensive and time consuming, which are luxuries you don't have when you have no money, and you're just trying to survive in an increasingly impoverished, corrupt, and violent country.

I don't think less of anyone trying to enter the country illegally, but that doesn't mean we can sit back and do nothing either. It's a horrible situation.

 

[Valonquar]

I just don't want to pay for anything at all, no matter how selfish that sounds. The truth is I barely make enough to live comfortably. I just barely scrape by in middle class, so I've never qualified for handouts of any kind. My family worked hard, and also never recieved any handouts. As a result I emotionally view people that "need" handouts as being lazy to some degree even though logically I know it's not that simple. I feel that the pendulum is always swinging far too widely and would be happier somewhere inbetween Obama and Trump next time.

Borders : If people that enter illegally want rights, they waived that right when they skipped the line everyone else was waiting in. I have friends who immigrated into this country legally, and it took YEARS. Sure they were not seeking asylum from a country torn by war or violence, but it took them years largely in part to the nature of how many illegals were given a pass after the fact. I don't think most illegals are criminals, I do not worry about them stealing my job. I don't even care if they speak English or not. I just want them to be legit, and pay taxes, and not ask me for any money, healthcare, or education until they are legit.

Trump: I hated pretty much every candidate offered last election. Bernie made promises he would never be able to keep due to Republican control in other houses. Hilary was just a hard no for me for more reasons that I care to list, and Trump is just in it for the money. The whole Russian meddling thing means nothing to me, and I refuse to believe anything ANY country may have engineered would have influenced my voting decision, wether it was real news, fake news, or well timed info leaks. I feel like day to day life would be largely the same regardless of who was elected.

Healthcare: This is the one place I can say for certain I felt an actual impact from the Obama presidency. When the AHA hit, I watched my company's PPO offering turn into a shit HSA offering which rose and price every year while offering less and less value every year. It was surely just corporate greed, but they always started these sorts of announcements with "Due to the rising costs of healthcare under the AHA, we are changing the health plan...." and it stung. A simple doctors office visit for a cold went from $15 copay to $95. An ear infection that would have been a simple $30 specialist copay turned into a $450 office visit, and then another $200 bill in the mail. So I was paying for insurance that barely gave me a coupon on an uninsured rate. It forced me to change jobs and move to another city just to not go broke from medical expenses. I got super lucky and found a state job with good benefits, but everyone I know in my field is seeing benefits tank across the board.

 

[Liamario]

Climate Change: Get China to do their share first and let's talk.

This is very childish. The US is responsible for itself. This isn't the like tidying up your room, this is literally going to be a catastrophe for life on this planet.

 

[BANGS]

I think a lot of leftist/socialist policies are good IN THEORY, but in practice our government has proven time and time again they are incompetent and untrustworthy enough to pull such things off...