Current Political Issues (USA)

[Oskar]

If you have any other ideas for questions, post below. This is going to be good. 

[Desertfalcon]

Wait, the United States is intervening in Ukraine???

[Oskar]

Wait, the United States is intervening in Ukraine???

...yeah. Does Crimea ring a bell? 

[Mclovin]

You do know that automatic weapons actually aren't legal and haven't been legal for a long time right? It's the semi automatic weapons that there is the current controversy over.

[Oskar]

You do know that automatic weapons actually aren't legal and haven't been legal for a long time right? It's the semi automatic weapons that there is the current controversy over.

Earlier in the year there was controversy over the machine guns so that's why I included. Personally, I am for tighter gun control.

[Mclovin]

Earlier in the year there was controversy over the machine guns so that's why I included. Personally, I am for tighter gun control.

I don't remember a controversy over machine guns, I remember one over the Ar-15s, which are not automatic rifles.

[Oskar]

I don't remember a controversy over machine guns, I remember one over the Ar-15s, which are not automatic rifles.

September-ish the NRA was supporting them being legalized.

[Solomon]

I don't see any mention in the OP of the things that actually matter to the long-term success of the nation and its citizens. 20 years from now, US citizens will look back and ask why nobody did a full overhaul of the healthcare system, why nobody fixed an electoral mechanism whereby a few voters in the "swing" states decide the president and the votes of people in all the other states mean nothing, why when everyone knew about the financial impact of an ageing population nobody tried to reduce the national debt, why nobody reformed campaign financing/contributions to prevent a handful of corporations/lobbies from "buying" political representatives, and why the US's foreign policy was allowed to become a political football.

[Oskar]

I don't see any mention in the OP of the things that actually matter to the long-term success of the nation and its citizens. 20 years from now, US citizens will look back and ask why nobody did a full overhaul of the healthcare system, why nobody fixed an electoral mechanism whereby a few voters in the "swing" states decide the president and the votes of people in all the other states mean nothing, why when everyone knew about the financial impact of an ageing population nobody tried to reduce the national debt, why nobody reformed campaign financing/contributions to prevent a handful of corporations/lobbies from "buying" political representatives, and why the US's foreign policy was allowed to become a political football.

It's a good idea, I just don't know how to put that in question form.

[Desertfalcon]

...yeah. Does Crimea ring a bell? 

 

I'm aware of sanctions, not of any real intervention

[Oskar]

I'm aware of sanctions, not of any real intervention

Humanitarian aid. They are considering sending weapons and/or soldiers in.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Oskar

[Desertfalcon]

Simply supplying humanitarian aid isn't really intervening in any significant sense, and the United States isn't going to send troops for obvious reasons.

[Oskar]

Simply supplying humanitarian aid isn't really intervening in any significant sense, and the United States isn't going to send troops for obvious reasons.

It was about whether we should continue what we are doing. Another way we are intervening (not directly) is by setting up NATO bases in the Baltic States which border Russia. 

[Fox Fire]

Do you support the religious freedom restoration act? (giving store owners the right to refuse service to homosexuals or transgenders)

Store owners already have the right to refuse service to anyone...

 

Should we get rid of background checks for gun owners?

Gun owners don't need background checks.

[Fox Fire]

Simply supplying humanitarian aid isn't really intervening in any significant sense, and the United States isn't going to send troops for obvious reasons.

We are supplying far more than humanitarian aid. In fact, I don't think we are even supplying humanitarian aid.

We've been supplying non-lethal military equipment, including a bunch of Humvees that literally had everything (including rotating gun mounts) except the actual guns. But besides that, the weapons market is a pretty relaxed place. I'm 90% sure Ukraine is getting weapons from NATO nations indirectly.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Fox Fire]

Humanitarian aid. They are considering sending weapons and/or soldiers in.

We've already sent soldiers in.

[Oskar]

We've already sent soldiers in.

I must be behind in the news

[Fox Fire]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2015/01/21/ukraine-us-army-russia/22119315/

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/11/fighting-rages-on-in-ukraine-ahead-peace-talks/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/blog/intercepts/2015/03/03/ukraine-russia-putin-war/24327263/

 

You can keep pretty decent track of it all from real news sources like this:

https://news.vice.com/

 

TV only shows you what they want you to hear.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Fox Fire

[fistofdoom]

Capitalization errors in the poll slowly encouraged me to read everything here before voting. And I'm not satisfied with the questions themselves.

Edited April 19, 2015 by fistofdoom

[Oskar]

Punctuation errors in the poll slowly encouraged me to read everything here before voting. And I'm not satisfied with the questions themselves.

There are no errors. If you want better questions, why not post them here.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2015/01/21/ukraine-us-army-russia/22119315/

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/11/fighting-rages-on-in-ukraine-ahead-peace-talks/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/blog/intercepts/2015/03/03/ukraine-russia-putin-war/24327263/

 

You can keep pretty decent track of it all from real news sources like this:

https://news.vice.com/

 

TV only shows you what they want you to hear.

Thanks, I'll have a look at those.

[Desertfalcon]

Pretty insignificant since that's only a token military TRAINING force and not anything that is going to see combat. The United States sells arms to just about everyone as well so that doesn't make Ukraine all that significant either to be honest. When the U.S. actually sends combat ready troops to fight in the conflict, or begins to carry out strategic air strikes, we can say they actually care enough to get involved in the conflict.

[Arthur James]

USA is good at turning other nations into civil war..

Edited April 19, 2015 by Arthur James

[Fox Fire]

Pretty insignificant since that's only a token military TRAINING force and not anything that is going to see combat. The United States sells arms to just about everyone as well so that doesn't make Ukraine all that significant either to be honest. When the U.S. actually sends combat ready troops to fight in the conflict, or begins to carry out strategic air strikes, we can say they actually care enough to get involved in the conflict.

Well that would never happen, as that would mean US soldiers fighting Russian soldiers.

Regardless, we are as involved as we can actually get.

[James Gordon]

I can see I'm a bit late to this, but anyways the American Plutocratic nation I live under as an American Citizen has so much wrong with it. Nice to see most people on this chat are socially progressive and want to see a solid change in the American System.

[Belisarius]

I'm bored, so I'm just expanding on my vote.

 

 

Do you believe abortion should be legal?

I think there should be no restrictions on First Trimester Abortions, with greater restrictions on Second Trimester Abortions. Third Trimester Abortions should be banned, with the exception of incest, rape, or danger to the mother's life. Otherwise it borders on infanticide.

 

Of course, we should be more accepting of general sex-ed in general. But we also have to recognize that poorer Americans (regardless of color) are having children out of wedlock, and in their teens. There's a cultural chasm there that needs to be bridged. Abortion is just secondary to all that.

 

 

Do you approve of gay marriage?

Yes, I think that given the centuries-long redefinition of marriage to a union of two individuals as a result of romantic love, that there is no need for the state to restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples. Of course, I believe that while the state should recognize SSM, I do not think we should force religious communities to accept this. It's a compromise necessary to maintain social cohesiveness in a diverse society.

 

Do you support the religious freedom restoration act? (giving store owners the right to refuse service to homosexuals or transgenders)

 

Eh, I'm mixed on this. I think both the left and right has been disingenuous in the depictions of the depictions of the Indiana and Arizona religious freedom laws.

 

No, the Indiana Laws would not usher in an era of doom and gloom of Nazis and bigotry. The United States has had this religious freedom law at the federal level since the Clinton Administration. And in that time the Gay Rights movement has boomed. Further, my understanding of the law is that it doesn't give carte blanche for businesses to bar the service of Gay and Lesbians, but that it forces any disputes into arbitration before a judge. The Judge can then determine if the issue stems from sincere religious convictions (e.g. a devout Muslim refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding) or plain homophobia (e.g. a business refusing to serve a gay person for any other person).

 

This is not the second coming of the Nazis. 

 

I'm a firm believer that we live in a multicultural, diverse polity where we have to craft laws that allows for the protection of cultural and religious practices. So yes, I'm an Atheist, a Secularist, and a big proponent of SSM. It will be a great day when the Supreme Court will most likely strike down all anti-SSM laws this coming summer (given Kennedy's vote in the Windsor care). But we have to be mature here, people. You cannot just be swept up in righteous anger and assume the universality of your views. Progress can and has been reversed. Ask an African American who lived both the end of the Civil War and the return of terror after Reconstruction. Reactionary movements can and will emerge. And they have won in the past. If you don't show some mercy now, they will show you none later.

 

Think long-term.

 

What is disturbing to me is the absolutism here. I have been a SSM supporter since about my sophomore year of high school, back in 2002ish. Given that I'm in the southern US, I lost count how many times I was called a f**, gay, whatnot. All because I believed in Marriage Equality. And now the same people who bullied me are on Facebook arguing about how everyone who supports the Indiana laws are a bigot, because now they finally saw the light.

 

lolk

 

The point may be lost to those here who were still children back then. Since a lot of people here below the age of 20 can't imagine a world where anti-SSM attitudes was the norm, even among their peers. Understand that the reshaping of the definition of marriage took centuries, but that Christian doctrine (and wider Western norms) are even longer. Do you really expect that people will just surrender their beliefs because now SSM acceptable? No, don't be naive. Thinks can change in a sudden, and don't think that this progress is just going to stay this way. Be vigilant, yet merciful.

 

Of course, the inverse is also true. White conservatives wailing about how the opposition of to the Indiana Laws are akin to persecution betray the privilege they have always had in American society. The fear of being called a homophobe is not comparable to the terror suffered by ethnic minorities in this country. That fear is not comparable to the systemic persecution and hatred of GBLTs in American society before the last decade. Even today gay children are still being disowned by their parents. It's sickening. But the perception of persecution is not going away because of facts. Facts don't help you, sadly.

 

Yeah, long-winded. But this is a much more complicated issue than what I've been hearing from everyone else.

 

I think if the government of Indiana simply adds in an amendment outlawing the discrimination of Gays and Lesbians (and transgendered) in all instances outside matrimonial ceremonies, that there could be a workable solution. But I'm not holding my breath there. 

 

 

Do you believe the US should continue to intervene in Ukraine?

What do you mean "should continue?" That implies the US is helping militarily, with soldiers in the front line. Do you mean diplomatic, financial support? Why should it not support Ukraine's territorial rights in Crimea and in Novorossiya? I do not think Russia has much legitimacy in intervening, but no one is going to stop them militarily. And the prospects of such a military confrontation are slim to nil.

 

Sanctions and hot-air will continue to be thrown, but I doubt that will bring Crimea back to Ukraine. That's long gone as long as Russia is still stable.

 

Should we get rid of background checks for gun owners?

 

We should expand it and end the Gun Show loophole on this. And there should be more stringent checks on mental illness. I don't get the fetishization with guns. I mean, are people compensating for something?

 

Should automatic rifles be legal for the average citizen to own?

 

No. Do you really need such a rifle to kill deer? Or are the deer armed as well? 

 

Should we authorize censorship?

I'm generally against censorship laws. Of course, we do now allow for libelous speech. But other than that, go nuts.