By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Biden vs Trump 2024 Political Platforms, Policies and Issues

Chrkeller said:
sundin13 said:

Do you feel like a government which is geared towards keeping the wealthy few rich produces a better society than a government which is geared towards uplifting the many?

I wholly understand the logic of supporting the governmental systems which work best for you (though I have my doubts about whether the Republicans are that party but I'll digress for now), but I'm curious about your wider beliefs regarding societal betterment. 

Oh I think society can be better when geared towards the masses, but pendulums can swing.  A government that takes cares of its people too much creates laziness and kills innovation.  I've lived in other countries.  The one thing that has turned me more conservative is living in socialism....  it isn't what American's think it is.  

At the end of the day I think it is balance.  Politics annoy me with the "us versus them" because a hybrid system is best.

American's have zero idea how damn good we have it.  

So where do you think the US is in the balance of that pendulum? I think obviously one can go too far to either side, but the question is where on the pendulum creates the best societal outcomes and what direction we need to move to get there.

I feel like reducing child poverty for example is something that we can do without significantly harming innovation and this is something that the left supports and the right does not (see the legislation regarding the expanded child tax credits). To me, things like this demonstrate that there is a lot of room to move to the left to improve the welfare of the masses without having significant negative effects (and I'd argue a child is more likely to grow into an innovator if they aren't starving). 

This is just one example, and in my opinion, demonstrates the fatal flaw of your split government ideal. You say a split government forces people to work together but the last few years should demonstrate that that is largely just a fantasy. The fundamental goal of conservatism is to oppose change. Gridlock benefits them inherently because they can achieve many of their goals by doing nothing. It is largely impossible to move forward meaningfully with such a split and I do not think we are anywhere near a society that can sit back and rest on its laurels. 



Around the Network

Wrong thread, apologies 



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

sundin13 said:
Chrkeller said:

Oh I think society can be better when geared towards the masses, but pendulums can swing.  A government that takes cares of its people too much creates laziness and kills innovation.  I've lived in other countries.  The one thing that has turned me more conservative is living in socialism....  it isn't what American's think it is.  

At the end of the day I think it is balance.  Politics annoy me with the "us versus them" because a hybrid system is best.

American's have zero idea how damn good we have it.  

So where do you think the US is in the balance of that pendulum? I think obviously one can go too far to either side, but the question is where on the pendulum creates the best societal outcomes and what direction we need to move to get there.

I feel like reducing child poverty for example is something that we can do without significantly harming innovation and this is something that the left supports and the right does not (see the legislation regarding the expanded child tax credits). To me, things like this demonstrate that there is a lot of room to move to the left to improve the welfare of the masses without having significant negative effects (and I'd argue a child is more likely to grow into an innovator if they aren't starving). 

This is just one example, and in my opinion, demonstrates the fatal flaw of your split government ideal. You say a split government forces people to work together but the last few years should demonstrate that that is largely just a fantasy. The fundamental goal of conservatism is to oppose change. Gridlock benefits them inherently because they can achieve many of their goals by doing nothing. It is largely impossible to move forward meaningfully with such a split and I do not think we are anywhere near a society that can sit back and rest on its laurels. 

Honestly I find both parties extreme.  College debt forgiveness and squatters rights is just stupid.  Pro life and supporting treason is asinine.

I believe the reason we are at a gridlock is both parties are too extreme.  I'd like to see both move towards the middle.  Granted liberalism is less crazy than the right at this point in time.  The right have lost their ever loving mind.  I do not know how to vote for the right anymore. 



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Chrkeller said:

Honestly I find both parties extreme.  College debt forgiveness and squatters rights is just stupid.  Pro life and supporting treason is asinine.

I believe the reason we are at a gridlock is both parties are too extreme.  I'd like to see both move towards the middle.  Granted liberalism is less crazy than the right at this point in time.  The right have lost their ever loving mind.  I do not know how to vote for the right anymore. 

What do you think squatter's rights are? And why do you think it's a Democrat thing? 

There's a lot of misinformation on what it actually is, and every state has a form of squatter's rights.  



the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

Honestly I find both parties extreme.  College debt forgiveness and squatters rights is just stupid.  Pro life and supporting treason is asinine.

I believe the reason we are at a gridlock is both parties are too extreme.  I'd like to see both move towards the middle.  Granted liberalism is less crazy than the right at this point in time.  The right have lost their ever loving mind.  I do not know how to vote for the right anymore. 

What do you think squatter's rights are? And why do you think it's a Democrat thing? 

There's a lot of misinformation on what it actually is, and every state has a form of squatter's rights.  

Yeah, florida is now making it a criminal case and taking away the civil loop.  

I love how you can't deal with anyone who doesn't think like you do.  

Perhaps unintentionally but you seem to take the stance you are smarter and more knowledgeable than anyone with a differing view.  Bad news, that isn't the case.

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 18 May 2024

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Around the Network
Chrkeller said:

I love how you can't deal with anyone who doesn't think like you do.  

I was just asking a question, as I was curious. I have no strong opinions on squatter's rights; it seems kind of troublesome in gray areas. 

The reason I asked, was because squatter's rights tends to get conflated with tenant's rights. Squatter's rights don't start to apply for 5+ years, depending on the state. In some states it's as many as 30 years before those squatter's rights apply. Someone sneaking into your house, while you're on vacation isn't covered under squatter's rights. 

As far as I've seen, most people don't seem to be in favor of squatter's rights, including liberals. I've seen a lot of supposed liberals saying it's been the one thing they've agreed with DeSantis about and I didn't see many detractors. Squatters rights probably mattered more a few hundred years ago, when there was poorer documentation on who owned what land. 

I have no problem with people who don't think like I do. I like challenging people. 



Chrkeller said:

Perhaps unintentionally but you seem to take the stance you are smarter and more knowledgeable than anyone with a differing view.  Bad news, that isn't the case.

All I did was ask a question. I didn't say anything about my own position, until the follow up post.

I know I'm out of my depth in a lot of topics. I ask questions and get into arguments mostly because I want to hear how other people think. 

I'm generally the opposite of what you think. I generally assume that everyone knows far less than what they think they do, including myself. So I spend a lot of time researching issues, before replying. I don't take any pride in my own knowledge. 

I take a lot of pride in assuming I'm absolutely clueless about everything, and being able to research things. Like being able to dig up the wording that was actually used in a bill, instead of relying on an article about it. 

It fascinates me that other people are so frequently careless or make assumptions on things. Even people who do bother to read, frequently made reading errors. But it bugs me immensely that people would rather let their pride get in the way of reality, as opposed to building a better world.

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 18 May 2024

Chrkeller said:
sundin13 said:

So where do you think the US is in the balance of that pendulum? I think obviously one can go too far to either side, but the question is where on the pendulum creates the best societal outcomes and what direction we need to move to get there.

I feel like reducing child poverty for example is something that we can do without significantly harming innovation and this is something that the left supports and the right does not (see the legislation regarding the expanded child tax credits). To me, things like this demonstrate that there is a lot of room to move to the left to improve the welfare of the masses without having significant negative effects (and I'd argue a child is more likely to grow into an innovator if they aren't starving). 

This is just one example, and in my opinion, demonstrates the fatal flaw of your split government ideal. You say a split government forces people to work together but the last few years should demonstrate that that is largely just a fantasy. The fundamental goal of conservatism is to oppose change. Gridlock benefits them inherently because they can achieve many of their goals by doing nothing. It is largely impossible to move forward meaningfully with such a split and I do not think we are anywhere near a society that can sit back and rest on its laurels. 

Honestly I find both parties extreme.  College debt forgiveness and squatters rights is just stupid.  Pro life and supporting treason is asinine.

I believe the reason we are at a gridlock is both parties are too extreme.  I'd like to see both move towards the middle.  Granted liberalism is less crazy than the right at this point in time.  The right have lost their ever loving mind.  I do not know how to vote for the right anymore. 

That doesn't really answer my primary question of where you think the US (not the political parties) is on the balance of the pendulum you were discussing, which I do think is an important question. Do you have thoughts on that matter?

That said, I do find a few things interesting about this post. First is squatters rights. I consider myself pretty dang far to the left and I often talk to people who are pretty far to the left and I don't think I've ever heard any particularly strong feeling on the matter. Personally, it isn't something I'd list in my top 100 priorities, and it isn't something I even really have a take on. Just interesting that you seem to think this is a defining characteristic of the left. 

Second, I also find it quite interesting that you oppose pro-life politics yet your ideal government has a Republican supreme court and Republican state legislatures, which are the primary fronts of that battle. How do you reconcile that? I know you have been critical of MAGA, but this is one of the main things that MAGA took from Republicans (as opposed to the many bits of MAGA that have become mainstream in the Republican party). 

Overall, I would argue that Democrats are a pretty centrist party right now, with a few vocal minority wings which are further to the left (but still far from far-left) while the Right is, to put it lightly, a mess. There is a lot of room for legitimate progress by moving to the left (again, child poverty is one important example). There are also a lot of new avenues of political exploration which the left seeks to explore and while I don't expect every attempt to be successful, I think that exploration is important in order to achieve progress. Fear of trying new things traps us with the problems of the status quo which simply does not work for many people, and it fails to patch the cracks in our society that emerge with the stresses of time. 



sundin13 said:
Chrkeller said:

Honestly I find both parties extreme.  College debt forgiveness and squatters rights is just stupid.  Pro life and supporting treason is asinine.

I believe the reason we are at a gridlock is both parties are too extreme.  I'd like to see both move towards the middle.  Granted liberalism is less crazy than the right at this point in time.  The right have lost their ever loving mind.  I do not know how to vote for the right anymore. 

That doesn't really answer my primary question of where you think the US (not the political parties) is on the balance of the pendulum you were discussing, which I do think is an important question. Do you have thoughts on that matter?

That said, I do find a few things interesting about this post. First is squatters rights. I consider myself pretty dang far to the left and I often talk to people who are pretty far to the left and I don't think I've ever heard any particularly strong feeling on the matter. Personally, it isn't something I'd list in my top 100 priorities, and it isn't something I even really have a take on. Just interesting that you seem to think this is a defining characteristic of the left. 

Second, I also find it quite interesting that you oppose pro-life politics yet your ideal government has a Republican supreme court and Republican state legislatures, which are the primary fronts of that battle. How do you reconcile that? I know you have been critical of MAGA, but this is one of the main things that MAGA took from Republicans (as opposed to the many bits of MAGA that have become mainstream in the Republican party). 

Overall, I would argue that Democrats are a pretty centrist party right now, with a few vocal minority wings which are further to the left (but still far from far-left) while the Right is, to put it lightly, a mess. There is a lot of room for legitimate progress by moving to the left (again, child poverty is one important example). There are also a lot of new avenues of political exploration which the left seeks to explore and while I don't expect every attempt to be successful, I think that exploration is important in order to achieve progress. Fear of trying new things traps us with the problems of the status quo which simply does not work for many people, and it fails to patch the cracks in our society that emerge with the stresses of time. 

With all due respect I answered your question.  The US is extreme on both sides.  I know liberals want to view themselves as middle aisle but that is hogwash.  The middle doesn't exist and that my friend is the problem.  Handing out billions in debt forgiveness, just one example, is not central.  

Federal protection laws are a path for pro choice.  I still think a balance is the way to go.  And note I said Republican SCOTOS, we currently have MAGA Supreme Court.  There is a difference.  MAGA is the worse thing for the Republican party.  MAGA isn't the same as republican.  

Handing complete control to one party isn't a good idea.  I know people want me to change my mind on this,  but I will not.  Too much power is bad regardless of which party holds it.  

I don't think the average person has any idea how polarized and biased BOTH sides have become.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 18 May 2024

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Chrkeller said:
zorg1000 said:

For me it a slippery slope.  Sure charge me 5% more I can afford it....  then another 5% 10 years later, heck add another 5% and another 5% years later.....  it is always easier to spend someone else's money.  

And don't take take this the wrong way, but your post is exactly why liberalism worries me.  It is my money and my concern.  It isn't our money and our concern.  Liberals have an odd view on ownership.  

Chrkeller said:

Gun laws = state decision.  I don't believe in federal gun laws.  Someone living off the land in TN need different gun laws than someone in NY city.  

Rights = everyone should be treated with respect and be protected under the law.

Immigration  = close the border, reduce it.  

Climate change = world problem that the world will never address.  I'm not worried about climate change.  I'm 100% humans destroy the planet, just a matter of when.

The thing is I 100% believe Republicans in control is a terrible idea.  I also believe democrats in control is a terrible idea....  balance and compromise should be the target.

My ideal:

State = Republicans 

House = democrats 

Senate = republican 

White house = democrats 

Supreme = republican 

Force our elected officials to work with each other, keep the balance...  neither party is bad or good.  Too much power for any party is bad.  

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, all 4 of my kids had soccer games today so it’s been a long, hectic day lol


I get wanting to keep as much of your paycheck as possible but the trend we have had over the last 40+ years just isn’t sustainable.

It’s just been a cycle of Republican presidents enacting massive tax cuts primarily for the rich & cutting budgets/deregulation for various agencies (except defense which sees a big increase) where the result is increased deficits, worsening wealth inequality & underfunded agencies being less effective.

In between that we have Democratic presidents try to reverse parts of those tax cuts/budget cuts/deregulation & create programs designed to help working class Americans while stabilizing the defense budget.

In the last 50 years we have seen the top income tax rate go from 70% to 28% before stabilizing in the mid-high 30s, the top corporate tax rate has dropped from 48% to 21%, the top capital gains tax has dropped from 35% to 15% before rising back to 20%.

You can definitely make an argument that taxes were too high in the 50s/60s/70s but essentially cutting taxes in half for the rich/corporations (while cutting the budget of the agency responsible for tax enforcement) is going too far.


Gun laws-sure, different states will have different needs but don’t you think there should be a general baseline of safety? Like requiring a license/gun safety course, universal background check, mental health assessment?

Rights-not all Republican politicians are against these things but it’s pretty much just Republican politicians who want to restrict women’s/LGBT/minority rights.

Immigration-there is a lot more nuance than just open/closed border. We already have a labor shortage along with declining birth rates and increasing life expectancy which is going to cause a demographic crisis where there are not enough people to support growing elderly population while also keeping the economy running. Unless people all of a sudden start having babies at a significantly higher rate than we are going to have to increase immigration.

Climate change-that is the most defeatist attitude I’ve ever heard. Acknowledging that something is a real and serious issue but having no desire to fix it is even worse than the climate deniers, at least they have the excuse of not thinking it’s real.


The issue with your theory about balance is that Republicans have little incentive to do what you’re suggesting. They already get over representation based on the electoral college where they have only won the popular vote once in the last 8 elections yet won the presidency 3 times, partisan gerrymandering causing an uneven distribution of House members and the Senate filibuster which allows them to block most legislation without a majority.

I agree with what you said to another poster about the pendulum, the problem is that we aren’t swinging back and forth between right wing and far wing, we are shifting back and forth between right wing and moderate left.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.