It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Xtrozero
I’ll enter in a discussion with you. I’m starting by reading about the Green New Deal. It’s a non-binding resolution, so it would serve as an ideal goal.
I think it is factual that climate change is real and will have an effect on the Earth. What to do about it, though? It looks like they want to decarbonize the economy 100% by 2030. That would help climate change, if other countries followed suit, but it might disrupt jobs and will certainly anger a few rich people in the carbon business. I like creative policies, like planting trees and I read of something to do with the ocean. I would recommend doing something, but not 100%.
I have no idea what a federal jobs guarantee is, but it sounds ripe for criticism.
These days, there are people working full-time who can barely afford an apartment to themselves. Colleges have gotten more expensive. If this trend continues, it could mean a decreasing middle-class, which is not good for social stability - as you can see here, it leads to policies like this being proposed. It is in everyone’s best interest for it to be possible to earn a living wage in America. We can’t have the wealth gap increase too much while letting the middle-class sink.
At any rate, the solution is not to deport these congresswomen or smear them or spread lies about them, those are retarded tactics that make it look like Republicans have no coherent argument against the proposal. The best tactic would be to offer a conservative counter-proposal that addresses the same issues in a conservative manner.
originally posted by: darkbake
How, exactly, is healthcare for all shelving the Constitutional Republic? We already have socialist organizations, such as the military, police force, libraries, social security, etc.
No one is going to follow suit to combat climate change if we don't lead by example. It could be done with little government control. The government could offer incentives to corporations to combat climate change, for example.
As far as going communist, this is simply not the case. The people would still have say, not government oligarchs. Still, it would not be simple to instigate these changes.
As for paying for things, I think we should enforce the rich paying taxes. Right now, they get away with not paying any, in many cases. Some corporations actually receive money from the government while paying zero taxes. They are not paying their fair share. Trump gave massive tax cuts to the rich that are not going to help the poor (it seems as if trickle-down economics doesn't work in reality). These tax cuts cost 2.3 trillion dollars.
I believe that with hard work and making the right decisions, it should be possible to have a family, own a house, save for retirement, go to college, etc... But this is simply not the case for many Americans.
It is not about entitlement, but just compensation for hard work. If we live in a nation where someone is born to a rich family, and with little work, is able to live lavishly while someone born poor works hard every day and has to live in a community living situation, even after getting an education and making the right choices, this is not a healthy society and not a stable society, especially if it starts to affect more and more Americans.
I'll bet that much of the world lives in communal housing, but they would probably be in the "#hole countries" that Trump is so against.
Trump backed off supporting the "Send her back" chant for one day, and then the next day, doubled down and called the people at the rally "patriots." It remains to be seen how much Trump continues this rhetoric, I'm glad you agree it is wrong, some conservative representatives in my state (Washington State) condemned his recent Tweet and the racist chant.
I simply don't think that having a different perspective than conservatives is morally wrong. It is, however, ethically wrong to try and deport people with different views than the President. It isn't a double-standard, it is supporting free speech. The President does not have free speech to shut down people with opposing viewpoints, this would negate the whole purpose of the First Amendment. Now, he is not going to go to jail for his Tweets. People just pointed out that they are a step in the wrong direction for an American President.
Should racism be suppressed? Possibly, since that takes away the freedom of individuals in the United States to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. People probably argued that they had the freedom to keep slaves. Just like murder is illegal - shouldn't we have the freedom to murder? No, because it takes away another's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
Thanks for the discussion, feel free to reply with more. I frequent ATS to get in discussions with conservatives so that I don't remain in my liberal bubble.