General Politics Thread

1743543423736.png
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Beerus
So Trump imposed tariffs some islands that only penguins live on and people are making jokes.

a7oVL2e_700b.jpg


Heard Island and McDonald Islands, which form an external territory of Australia, are among the remotest places on Earth, accessible only via a two-week boat voyage from Perth on Australia’s west coast. They are completely uninhabited, with the last visit from people believed to be nearly 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

But the reason tariffs were placed on them is because he was told millions are being tariffed to the US for imports which is... Wot? How the heck are two islands where no people live or have even been in 10 years are making millions off the US for imports that do not exist. That should be the story. Wth is going on? lol
 


Ya know, I read an article similar to this in Weekly World News back in the 1990s. I was probably 8 or 9, and was obsessed with Aliens. I'm guessing the guy (or gal) who leaked that is the same age as I am and read the same story back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beerus
Beerus said:
But the reason tariffs were placed on them is because he was told millions are being tariffed to the US for imports which is... Wot? How the heck are two islands where no people live or have even been in 10 years are making millions off the US for imports that do not exist. That should be the story. Wth is going on? lol
Click to expand...
Apparently this was placed on the fishermen. There are fisher ports on these islands. So that explains it.

Also...

GnsRpD3W0AAstQA.jpeg


More and more are leaving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swamps
Beerus said:
Apparently this was placed on the fishermen. There are fisher ports on these islands. So that explains it.

Also...

View attachment 8999

More and more are leaving.
Click to expand...
The far left keeps pushing them away. Just like they keep pushing away sane voters. I mean, they still gonna have their hive minders though, but wonder how long that can sustain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beerus
Swamps said:
The far left keeps pushing them away. Just like they keep pushing away sane voters. I mean, they still gonna have their hive minders though, but wonder how long that can sustain.
Click to expand...
Going far left or far right was never going to be a winning strategy. On both sides it is like 10% if that with a lot of fluff and filler of people that don't pay attention. And I hate to say it, a lot of people probably have no business voting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swamps
Beerus said:
Going far left or far right was never going to be a winning strategy. On both sides it is like 10% if that with a lot of fluff and filler of people that don't pay attention. And I hate to say it, a lot of people probably have no business voting.
Click to expand...
I've always said that citizens should score a certain percentage on an IQ test before being allowed to vote.

I'm a Centrist myself. However, I'm called both far right and far left by folks on both sides.

Was Libertarian, but the last Governor candidate (who also ran for President) is a complete shithead. He was an obvious leftist who infiltrated the party and killed the momentum it was building. Funny how people will waste money to keep things from changing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beerus
Swamps said:
I've always said that citizens should score a certain percentage on an IQ test before being allowed to vote.

I'm a Centrist myself. However, I'm called both far right and far left by folks on both sides.

Was Libertarian, but the last Governor candidate (who also ran for President) is a complete shithead. He was an obvious leftist who infiltrated the party and killed the momentum it was building. Funny how people will waste money to keep things from changing.
Click to expand...
Just being more informed would help. People watching CNN are less informed than people getting news from memes these days and that is a massive problem lol
 
I had a debate on between a libertarian and a "modern conservative" that happens to still lean left on social issues.

They were both arguing over welfare. The libertarian guy is arguing it has ruined society, family, values, and it is straight up left. The other guy is saying welfare and such are good things that bettered society. They got onto the topic of money a number of times.

I am sitting here looking at the tax breakdowns. Welfare is taken out of federal income tax. If they were to abolish the federal income tax today, a person that makes 50k per year would only gain around $2,000. The largest cost in terms of taxation is social security. This covers retirement, disabilities, and survivors (families that lost their primary provider in the household).

So basically, welfare isn't the main cost in taxation, it is social security and no one wants to fix it, cut it, or just in general touch it in any way so it seems like people are backsliding to just blame federal income tax and welfare when it isn't even the biggest cost people pay out. It blows my mind that so many people are not even aware of this. Also that the medical aspect of it eats up huge amounts of the funding.

I feel like if they truly wanted to "fix" this problem, all these benefits within social security would be separated and those with higher incomes (I am talking well off millionaires, financial stable above and beyond their means) would cover the costs of disabilities and survivors and everyone else that earns less only funds their own retirement. Well off millionaires don't need to be funding for retirement funding in the first place. But maybe this is just an ignorant viewpoint because I am no expert on the topic.

Just wanted to throw all this out there cause my brain be thinking. lol
 
ahill1 said:
Haha no worries, I actually read it just as that, someone that is willing to show their view and in a no condescending way, as I hadn't made mine clear.

It was a nice read, I enjoy reading different perspectives and reading through people's experiences certainly makes these Strong Government intervention vs Less intervention a nuanced issue.

I personally am still in favour of a strong government, in the sense of taxes meant to social investments, investment in infrastructure, public healthcare... I agree, very much, with the core of those ideas. I agree that there are many scumbags that are getting spots they shouldn't. This may come many times from corruption... Here at least, the way the democracy is established, with a congress that is very split, with a lack of joining forces in favor of preventing preventive measures that could be advantageous to the population by voting X on congress... That many times coming simply due to "it's opposition, we won't make the government potential good measures easy".

That tho ends up leading to the executive power negotiating some things in favour of having their measures approved. For example, giving some ppl certain charges in public companies as a way to have a meaningful party supporting a cause. It's bad, wrong, sure. But at the same time, it's a power structure that doesn't leave many options. It's pretty tough here for a left leaning president and its team to pass even basic measures that should be just approved as a common sense in favor of those who live in despair and hunger unless there are some compensation back from the government to those specific groups. Agribusiness in here for example holds a strong power in Congress and also an economical one to burn one's image if what benefits them isn't kept to an extent. It isn’t a single, unified group. Still, the larger driven force has a strong tension with socially democratic governments due to economic interests—like environmental regulations or taxes—along with ideological concerns tied to issues like land reform or associations with social movements such as the MST, which isn't a criminal group but a movement of people with no lands to raise a family properly, many struggling economically to even produce enough for themselves... So when there is a push for a needed strong reform in which land that is not used is given to them, the sector labels them "criminals", "thieves"... Even though those big farmers with big lands have roots in the past where rich owners with huge lands would enslave Africans and Natives... with their descendants being largely those great land farmers and radical agribusiness representante, and the no land movement largely tracking down to groups who had roots of their ancestors being slaved, poor...

There’s also a broader cultural divide, where many in the sector identify with more conservative ideals and at the same time a big libertarian view when it comes to advancing in natives lands more and more, finding absurd ways to justify expanding their lands even in lands that are recognized as properties from the natives... As if the lands they stole aren't enough. And they aren't since it's a sector based off large scale production to exportation, based off on chemical products, machines and monoculture, with extensive one specific food. So they also threaten the government in not battling heavily deforestation and extensive destruction of nature... The government still acts plenty, but it can't go only up to a certain point and the president is also, as exchange many times of openly denying further dislocation of natives, forced to accept certain individuals in public fields...

That's the main problem to me, that there are spots being occupied by incompetent people, sure. But it isn't a flaw that is inherent of the central government being pro investing in social goods and infrastructure, it's the system itself that presses it back for the investment to go off what is really needed. But you don't see a right leaning president trying to address the issue of ensuring that the tax from the people and the government expenses be allocated to the right cause, with strong surveillance, which should be the path. But they outright destroy the companies and the public sector as a whole due to many examples of the money being used for other means. But to the far right, this lack of regulation and open investments and expenses is good. Not, imo, to the average population who can't afford many needed social dignity (like programs that help with the salary of very poor families so they can afford to have the kids in school, or a healthcare that, as flawed as it can be, saved many lives here during COVID where marginalized groups couldn't afford probate hospitals... It can be improved, ofc, but destroying the idea because it is not perfect would just lead to imo a bigger discrepancy in the quality of life). This "everyone on their own" isn't fair without outright incentive from the State/Government for certain causes because economical inequality exists... Some have way more power than others and can afford what others would die to pay so they can have a blood test....


Btw, I'm not disagreeing at all, like, trying to invalidate your PoV. I respect it, like I've said, I always enjoy respectful ideas exchanges and just wanted to share my perspective on this too.
Click to expand...
Man usually I try to red longer messages but brother this... this broke me.