Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[TTTX]

Well ya, in just my lifetime alone it was 2000, 2004, and 2016 where we fucked up as a nation voting someone in who was unqualified.

not the first time that has happened in US history and I'm going to be honest I think it's the Democrats fault for Trump winning, they could have easily have won if they had taken him more seriously and told the people more of what they wanted to hear (which is something Trump did).

[Alienmorph]

That, and Hillary not forcing Sanders out of the picture so she could be the president candidate. It's never a good look when your party is fighting itself.

[Mobius_118]

The truth is not easily nor readily acceptable when the lie is that sweet. Trump spoke like what his base wanted to hear. Too bad it was all lies. He hasn't stopped lying since.

[TTTX]

The truth is not easily nor readily acceptable when the lie is that sweet. Trump spoke like what his base wanted to hear. Too bad it was all lies. He hasn't stopped lying since.

like a true politician.

[TTTX]

That, and Hillary not forcing Sanders out of the picture so she could be the president candidate. It's never a good look when your party is fighting itself.

pretty sure they are still fighting each other.

[Vol]

http://archive.is/N6Fdn

To put it eloquently, "No shit, Sherlock."

The point was the symbolic refutation of nearly the entire state (geographically), and the local political will to side with the people. I think the state will blink first, but claim a moral victory.

[Mobius_118]

Those boys are so ready to start a boogaloo but that's a one way trip to having a hole in their heads. We Americans have demonstrated quite effectively that without proper training we cannot handle our firearms.

Even with proper training it's a crapshoot.

[Mazder]

Those boys are so ready to start a boogaloo but that's a one way trip to having a hole in their heads. We Americans have demonstrated quite effectively that without proper training we cannot handle our firearms.

Even with proper training it's a crapshoot.

I can hear The British Grenadiers being played mournfully.

[Mobius_118]

That's a peppy one... Great Britain will have it's own worries soon enough.

[TheodoricFriede]

http://archive.is/N6Fdn

To put it eloquently, "No shit, Sherlock."

The point was the symbolic refutation of nearly the entire state (geographically), and the local political will to side with the people. I think the state will blink first, but claim a moral victory.

And just think. This is how they respond to a literal constitutional RIGHT.

[Mobius_118]

The 2nd Amendment is funny.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's the National Guard, not these fat fucks who would pass out after 5 pushups in an APFT.

[Vol]

What constitutes a militia, legally, will be a fun legal challenge, as at least 1 of these VA resolutions has included forming a regulated militia as part of their defiance.

Though there is little chance a newly elected governor, in a newly blue state, is going to start off his gun control plans with allowing escalation to the point of massacring citizens. He wants to get rid of semi-automatics and anything scary looking/sounding, not make a stand for overturning the 2nd and starting a civil war.

[Mazder]

That's a peppy one... Great Britain will have it's own worries soon enough.

True enough.

Maybe Mel Gibson will be able to make another historically innacurate Braveheart film.

The 2nd Amendment is funny.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's the National Guard, not these fat fucks who would pass out after 5 pushups in an APFT.

Is the National Guard run solely by each state in each state?

Is it a branch of the Military or is it Federally owned and operated in any way?

I ask, mainly as I don't know, but in my random foreigner brain that is addled with a cold it seems that something that is a part of the state can not be it's own external check. That sounds like it'd be like Donald Trump being the auditor for Trump Towers's tax year.

[Mobius_118]

The NG is both State and Federal, actually.

Each state has it's own NG, tasked with the defense of it's state. They can be mobilized by the President to accomplish a Federal mission, like supporting and supplementing Active Duty units, which are Federal.

Back in the day, the militia was state funded and trained, and it coalesced into the National Guard. Now these patriot militias are not state funded nor maintained. It's just a bunch of self-styled "patriots" who love the government. That's why they stockpile arms against it.

[Mazder]

Okay, that kind of answers my question.

If the President orders a Federal mission can they all rebel or rebel one by one?
I mean I guess it's moot if a smaller state's NG revolts against the NG of all the USA.

[Mobius_118]

It's extremely rare to see a state government resist a Federal mission, and when it does happen, like with the recent operations at the Southern Border, people raise a big stink about it.

If it ever gets to that point where all the NG's say no...We've never seen that happen. Who knows what will transpire.

[Vol]

https://www.businessinsider.com/millenn ... rs-2019-12

Now I'm no financial expert, in part because I find the idea of making billions trading theoretical future wealth around to be disgusting, but this seems both poor for the "American dream," and also a return to an older time where you more or less lived with your family until you inherited their wealth.

I'd be curious as to what the breakdown of mean/median/mode for net worth is right now, as well as housing situation, marriage, and children. Couple years ago, I think it was less than $10k, 35% with family, majority no, majority no, lot of single moms. And while the graphs should be trending up as the oldest of our cohorts hit the prime of their careers, and buy houses, if that's the average, that's bleak.

"Hey kids, listen, so you _can_ go out and start a new life and a family and stuff, but you'll statistically be living pretty hand to mouth. Or you can stay here, and pay a much more fair rent, but you know, our roof, our rules. But when we die, around 90, you get our stuff, split 2 or 3 ways, minus the debt we put off paying and the medical bills. Also put aside a million dollars for retirement and invest in stocks and shit lol, SS won't be paying out full amounts for you."

It's a nasty cluster of several different variables hitting at once. But on the optimist side, it might mean much stronger family units, in defiance of what our rulers want.

Edit: And obviously the hard working, the driven, the smart, the strong, the best of us will always succeed regardless.

[Raga]

And it goes beyond that. Most of that wealth is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of white boomers. So even when Millennials do eventually inherit wealth it's going to be overwhelmingly white Millennials who do. And they will start inheriting all this wealth at exactly the moment the population is supposed to flip to minority majority. That's a recipe for a lot of things but most of them don't seem good.

[TTTX]

And it goes beyond that. Most of that wealth is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of white boomers. So even when Millennials do eventually inherit wealth it's going to be overwhelmingly white Millennials who do. And they will start inheriting all this wealth at exactly the moment the population is supposed to flip to minority majority. That's a recipe for a lot of things but most of them don't seem good.

maybe we'll see something like South africa "hand over your stuff or else".

[Vol]

Yes, the race war will be vicious, and we'll have to rely on the purchasing power of our wealth to overcome the sheer numbers of-

Whoops, I mean. I've also heard that Boomers might need to liquidate their assets to actually cover their retirements. Yeah, they have wildly overpriced houses, but that's a retarded way to invest your wealth if you need to live in it too. To say nothing of the medical problems that'll ramp up, subsidizing their offspring as many do, and any of the other money-sapping parts of life. They've supposedly put aside very little for retirement on average as well.

My mother and father both have had long careers, hers in the legal field, his as many different things, a business owner as of now, and they've _made_ a fortune, but spent it. I would wager I probably have more in my account than them combined. They have assets, which I do not, but they need a place to live and vehicles to drive. As their health fails, they're going to need supplementary insurance, possible home-aid, life insurance (God I hope), and whatever else. My mother has the higher net worth by a huge margin, but my brother and I are aware that, when it comes time to settle the estate, liquidating the house and cars and paying off the debts will probably leave us with less than $10k each, if anything, given her house appears to have lost value since it was purchased. So we're fucked on the inheritance route, probably spend it on the funerals. I can only imagine what it's going to be like for the rest of you who have parents with less.

So that would be an interesting study, when the generational transfer occurs, _how much_ is expected to actually be passed down.

[Raga]

I'm not really a trafficker in conspiracy theories about race wars, but it does seem like it could put some kinks in the theory that everything will work out once all the old white farts die.

[Vol]

It occurs to me, seeing a bizarre clip of The Witcher's Netflix show, which I can only assume is meant to spitefully mock the people who claimed the ideologically homogeneous writers would spitefully mock them, that everything in mass media is, to a lesser or greater extent, woke now.

The only relatively large scale release, either a new work or part of an existing franchise, that I can think of that has not checked off a few squares on the identity politics list, was Kingcome Come: Deliverance. And they caught shit for that steadfast adherence to depicting medieval Bohemia. Even 40k is dipping their toes in it, which admittedly isn't a big deal, because the setting is galaxy-wide and there's been some cool ideas out of it.

So given one of the points of the push to break people down into their component groups was to facilitate representation in entertainment, does the total success of that mean it no longer needs to be enforced as orthodoxy?

Of course not, too many people are too invested in keeping a won fight going. But as a thought experiment, does the absolute success of the diversity crowd mean they are no longer needed? Anywhere and everywhere you go in the western world, in your face, on the street, in your inbox, in your escapism, in your school books, they succeeded. Logically, then they go away, to new fights. Surely the masses and corporations adore their new, cosmopolitan reality, and thus do not require the oversight anymore.

[Raga]

I was just thinking that following that brouhaha over the lesbian kissing add on the Hallmark Channel, there is probably a market for "the 1995 media company."

"We promise to not ever show any social issue that wouldn't have been shown on network TV in 1995."

It would undoubtedly infuriate a lot of people but I bet there would be enough of a market for that to keep it solvent.

[Vol]

Wouldn't it just be lovely though?

Season 6 of The Simpsons was current, for context. South Park was 2 years out.

[Vol]

maybe we'll see something like South africa "hand over your stuff or else".

Assuming current trends hold, inheritance would be taxed to hell by that point, on racial/economic lines. The GOP _exists_ on borrowed time because of their suicidal tolerance of mass immigration since the '65 bill. Once they're unable to actually threaten to win majorities in Congress, that's it. So long as they can't peel away the Replacement Americans, which they won't be able to, the rainbow coalition starts dictating legislation. And white identity groups are intrinsically super-evil, so, who's gonna fight to keep up the transfer of wealth among them?

[Mobius_118]

Damn shame most of my equipment that I get for military/LEO use is from places that are hardcore conservative shitlords. Yeah, you put out quality boots. This "snowflake" appreciates it.

Speaking if which, best combat boots I've ever worn. Up next are the Law Dogs which, if the Strife is any indicator, will be super comfortable.

[Vol]

No size 16s. Being a lanklet ain't fair sometimes. Finally retired my work shoes because the sole was coming off, there were multiple holes in the top, and they were becoming a slip hazard from how little traction I'd get on roofs. Gotta make 'em last. Want some nice, steel-toed, waterproof boots.

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/statu ... 8025717760

"So the House will have sole power to impeach, and then be tried in the Senate with the Chief Justice overseeing proceedings."
"Correct."
"What if the House votes to impeach, but refuses to hand over the articles of impeachment?"
"Under what laughable set of circumstances would Congress not want to settle the matter as quickly as possible? Now, let's write the bit about guns so that people know we only mean muskets and stuff."

It is bizarre. They go in knowing it'll be a fast House impeachment, all hearsay, secret meetings with the whistleblower, yada yada. Was the plan that badly thwarted by Trump immediately dropping the transcript? I can't see how it would've affected the process enough to make a difference. The inquiry bit would've started after they knew exactly what they had to work with.

So were they banking on the press carrying the water hard enough to swing public perception? That'd be foolish, the press is blatantly Pravda, the trench lines are dug. Was there some damning evidence they expected to get out of the interrogations, not expecting Trump to block all cooperation? That might be it, since he, presumably with GOP urging, bent over backwards for the Mueller nonsense, and couldn't even get people to admit he was clean at the end for it. But that's a flimsy plan for pushing through a straight partisan impeachment with, since it's a possibility, and Trump is not orthodox enough to expect him to be consistent with that.

Plus 2/3's in the Senate is very high. Even if they could firmly establish the worst possible case for Trump in this, I don't think enough of his voters would believe it is a serious enough crime to cause half the GOP senators to flip, because Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine are so clearly unethical, even if it's not criminal. Just like how perjury over if a blowjob was considered sex was too stupid to work.

So the plan was to do a quicky impeachment, fuck going to courts to compel testimony and defining limits of the branches, get the press to run wall-to-wall Orange Man Do New Bad Thing, then refuse to give the Senate the articles until the majority agrees to the terms of the House. Which sounds really stupid, as the majority in the House extorting the majority in the Senate would be usurpation of constitutional duties. And even then, djinn's out of the bottle, there is no way they're going to get Trump removed. All they've accomplished is adding an extra sentence to his historical description. "Was impeached on a party line vote, acquitted in the Senate on a party line vote."

House does the impeachment, Senate tries the case, Chief Justice oversees Senate. Majority vote in the House, 2/3's in the Senate. Very simple. I watched a lefty lawyer do an explanation of this, and he was pretty clear on it too. The chambers have mostly carte blanche to invent procedures for this, so long as they stick to the basics demanded of them. Founders were intentionally vague because of what should be the magnitude of invoking these processes. If the House is mad they didn't get everything they wanted, go to the fucking courts and get them to arbitrate between the branches as they're supposed to do.

So bizarre.

[TheodoricFriede]

This is a rare case of me actually willing to buy the official White House angle.

If the House does not submit the articles of Impeachment to the Senate, then no one was impeached.

[Mobius_118]

No, he's been in impeached. In the House.

Until the Senate can hold a fair trial, with all the witnesses trump has blocked from speaking, then the House can with withhold the Articles of Impeachment from them until as such, they do their fucking job.

[Vol]

It's an academic question, really. Since there's not specific line in the Constitution that I know of to deal with this comical situation where the articles passed the House, but they want to use them as a bargaining chip in the Senate. But for all intents and purposes, yeah, he's impeached, unless Pelosi holds them too long and some arcane judicial ruling says they're null and void and so is the impeachment.

But the House doesn't have the authority to dictate terms of the trial in the Senate, as is made very clear in the law itself. Withholding on the contingency that the Senate does what they did not is silly.

Edit: However, since Trump is not actually a criminal defendant in this, his 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial do not apply.

[Mobius_118]

It's hard to have a fair trial when the jurors have gone on live tv to say they'll kill it immediately without preponderance of evidence. Evidence that is obvious to everyone.

Drug dealers get convicted on less evidence. The Senate needs to get their heads out of their asses and do their jobs.

[Vol]

By that same token, the House vote is unfair because multiple Democrats said they wanted to impeach him over the years before this. If I dug around campaign rallies, I'm sure I could find a few campaigning on "impeaching the motherfucker." Probably senators too.

It cannot be a fair process, because it is not a legal one, it is entirely political. Since the gravitas of removing the head of the Executive, by the Legislative, is a rather dangerous move to make, it therefore should require a very high bar of proof of a very serious crime, because it will logically require most of the president's party to turn on him (ideally at the behest of the people).

To say nothing of what might happen if a true third party candidate somehow took the White House, and Congress decided to flex their monopoly on elected power.

[Mobius_118]

I dunno, man. Abuse of power, corruption, multiple violations of Constitutional law hardly screams political bias. We all knew who he was, what he does, and what he stands for.

It sure as fuck isn't the American people he cares about.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

And yet impeachment is less popular than ever. Curious that. You would think if the Mobius approved narrative was correct that the whole country would be baying for blood.

I'm sure he'll escape from that problem by saying anyone who opposes Impeachment is either stupid or evil. Like everyone who has ever disagreed with him politically.

[Mobius_118]

You're a funny guy, GAC.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

>Links 538

If that's the group you want to go with boy howdy are you in for a fun time next election.

[Mobius_118]

Hey man, you can keep talking, the numbers don't lie.

I thought you picked up your toys and ran off. You can't even follow your own words.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

>Mother Jones
>Politico
>Business Insider

I'm really starting to understand your world view. The sources you provide are very telling. As for engaging again I decided to give you a Christmas present. God knows you can't function without acting like the last moral person in the country.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-sgrki4pu4

Just came across this video and I liked it so I decided to share it.

[Mobius_118]

Shit man, even Fox news, the fakest domestic news group in the US, says that impeachment support is steady.

GAC if you're going to keep shifting the goal posts to source gathering, no wonder you're so angry when reality doesn't go your way. Also, quit getting your news from MRAs, RT, and 4chan. It looks like you sought refuge there recently, you're back to:

>This shittery

All you need is the green text.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuHepjHA2JY

a bit old video, but it shows things are not as black and white as the far left claims it to be.

[Vol]

Was reading a discussion of mass immigration supplanting native populations, the pros and cons, when someone pointed out that while these immigrants might only be a "relatively" small percentage of population, they tend to be breeding age. Whereas the native population follows the natural age distribution curve. A quick look shows the youngest Gen X women should be hitting menopause soon, and while men are fertile until they die, their propensity to have kids also drops off with age. 70 year olds don't go out and find a 30 year old and try to woo her and have kids all that often. And the drop below replacement rate doesn't occur until 3+ generations after immigrating. So if a city, say, has 40% of its population as first generation immigrants, and because of the exponentially lopsided dispersal of wealth, is going to skew towards older natives, it seems like many cities, and therefore states, could be effectively controlled by people who are fresh off the boat or the children of those people.

So, first question, does it bother any of you that your government policy might soon be set by people who have no ancestry or common history with your country?

Gen X to the Greatest is about half the population, they're not having any more kids statistically speaking. Millennials are well below replacement, with no end in sight to our pitiful rate. Zoomers, too young to know yet. Meanwhile, in the USA at least, there does not exist any political will to stop legal immigration, and half of us are fighting like hell to make illegal immigration de facto and then de jure legal.

Second question, what could possibly be done to boost the birth rate of the people who've inhabited their lands for centuries?

It's clearly not a matter of wealth or education improving, because those are both correlated with not having kids. The poorest, dumbest of us have the most, or the most ideologically conservative (Mormons, Amish). Short of a total reversion to patriarchy as a matter of law anyway, which would be a tough sell, as no one would vote for that. All of this coming with the controversial assumption that the people native to a geographically area should be the predominant force in governance of it.

[Mobius_118]

They've said the same shit every time a new immigrant force comes in.

[TTTX]

Second question, what could possibly be done to boost the birth rate of the people who've inhabited their lands for centuries?

increase people wages so they can afford having a family and a bit more free time so they can actually enjoy the family they wish to create and as a bonus for USA get a European kind of health system so it doesn't put people in so much debt and maybe make so it's not so expensive to go to college.

[Raga]

So, first question, does it bother any of you that your government policy might soon be set by people who have no ancestry or common history with your country?

Not really. With some qualifications. Namely: have they assimilated into whatever the overarching American culture evolves to be or are we Balkanized? If we are still demonstrably culturally the same people and not dozens of different peoples, I don't really care what the ethnic makeup of the country happens to be or if we are no longer identifiably WASP anymore. We have that luxury because we aren't an ethnostate. Secondly: are they destitute or do they actually have wealth, especially land and houses? If they have land and houses, one would assume they live here and care about the long-term health of the communities they live in and not just what they can or can't get in government aid packages.

If they are middle class and culturally American (meanly they accept the realities of the Constitution and what it means), I don't really give a shit where their ancestors came from or whether or not they've been here 20 years or 200 years.

Second question, what could possibly be done to boost the birth rate of the people who've inhabited their lands for centuries?

This seems more like a Europe question because, again for me, I don't care what the birth rate is here of the "people who have inhabited their lands for centuries." I care that we have enough workers in good enough paying jobs that we can fund our welfare state and maintain our quality of life. If those are natives born to middle class families, good. If those are high earning immigrants who are willing to assimilate (again the Constitution), good.

But if you want to get our birthrate to a point where it could maintain our welfare state and quality of life, I'd propose the following:

1. Revamp immigration system to highly favor skilled immigrants over low skill immigrants.
2. Set quotas such that immigrants can not be dominantly pulled form 1 region of the world, brought in to work in 1 industry, brought in to settle in 1 area, or brought in to work for 1 company. Force variety into the immigrant population so as to force assimilation and limit the ability of businesses to suppress wages.
3. Cease or severely limit free trade with any country that doesn't have a standard of living comparable to our own.
4. Change laws to make it mandatory for employers to accommodate people bringing children to work wherever it's possible without safety concerns.
5. Aggressively pursue policies that automate crap paying jobs which will dry up the demand for low skill immigrant laborers

Those would boost wages and lower the cost of childcare, which are two of the leading reasons birthrates are so low.

And long term, a lot of what TTTX said would have to come into play. Steps would have to be taken to get the price of college and healthcare under control. Both would require some massive regulatory overhaul and not just increased welfare spending though.

[TTTX]

And long term, a lot of what TTTX said would have to come into play. Steps would have to be taken to get the price of college and healthcare under control. Both would require some massive regulatory overhaul and not just increased welfare spending though.

Thank you for saying that.

As a Side note, Denmark actually pays people to go to college, (depending on your situation you still might still need a job, but you be in hopeless debt by the end of it).

[Sinekein]

So, first question, does it bother any of you that your government policy might soon be set by people who have no ancestry or common history with your country?

No, I'll just have to accept that the definition of "my country" is changing. U.S politicians have 250 years of common ancestry with their country in the best case scenario which is rather pitiful compared to European averages - the house I grew up in was older than that.

Even then, none of us have many things in common with people from the early XXth century when it comes to culture or behavior. People calling for the good ol' days as a common ground are fooling themselves, the differences brought by medical or technological progress are way more important than those brought by religion (especially monotheistic ones) or genetics.

I would much rather have someone who understands that the world is changing and tries to pick policies so that the society does so in the right direction, than a man lying about the possibility to go back to a golden past by appealing to some dubious common ground.

In all likelihood you are having the exact same fears towards Mexicans that people had in the past about Cubans, or Chinese, or Italians, or Irish, or any other ethnicity that was the newest one to arrive. And then, a new crisis in the world will bring new populations, and the Mexicans will side with the "true Americans" defending the "common ancestry of our country", and it will be equally as rubbish as Cubans from Miami, Irish from Boston, Cajuns from Louisiana, Norwegians from Minneapolis and Basques from Idaho claiming they have "common ancestry". Their common ancestry is living in the U.S.A.

[Mazder]

I mean, I'll whip out the old "RULE BRITTANIA" and "hate on the French" jokes at the drop of a hat.
But they're just that.
Jokes.
I don't truly have hatred for the French, in fact I know they're one of our closest allies and comrades, sharing many ideals and goals. Yeah we disagree in places but so does every family so why not neighbouring countries too?

Those that think the "good old days" of a strong UK in the way of being a top dog is kind of kidding themselves.
We're a small island. We don't have the pull to make those power moves and any time we do it's via things that can be removed/moved and by borrowing them from others.

Now, do I agree that governmental policy would change to suit those coming to this country?
Well that would imply that this is what they came here for, our policies and way of life, so I'd hope they'd not want to change the thing they came to take advantage of as it seems silly to go to a better place and say "wow, this place is so much better than the place we left, so let's introduce the problems of the place we left into it!"

I just think it's more of a rate of influx being more noticeable with technology.

[Sinekein]

1. Revamp immigration system to highly favor skilled immigrants over low skill immigrants.
2. Set quotas such that immigrants can not be dominantly pulled form 1 region of the world, brought in to work in 1 industry, brought in to settle in 1 area, or brought in to work for 1 company. Force variety into the immigrant population so as to force assimilation and limit the ability of businesses to suppress wages.
3. Cease or severely limit free trade with any country that doesn't have a standard of living comparable to our own.
4. Change laws to make it mandatory for employers to accommodate people bringing children to work wherever it's possible without safety concerns.
5. Aggressively pursue policies that automate crap paying jobs which will dry up the demand for low skill immigrant laborers

Okay, so:

1 I absolutely disagree with because it is something that widens the gap between developed countries and the rest of the world. Those skilled immigrants also get fleeced because at similar skill-level they get paid less than locals (nurses or doctors in Europe are an excellent example). If you keep stealing their educated workers, you can't possibly expect poor countries to improve their lot to the point their (non-skilled) people stop trying their luck in the immigration roulette, and so you perpetuate the cycle of hopefuls risking their lives to go to the promised land. If you somehow manage to create impenetrable barriers between "the rich" and "the poor", you just created a nightmarish dystopia where you success in life depends on which side of the fence you were born on.

2 I absolutely agree with, although it requires a ton of effort because people will naturally try to meet people they have some commonality with, even if it is only the language. To avoid that you need to give those people real life opportunities, and help them to a degree - like language courses, or ensuring they have the time to properly educate their kids so that the next generation does not end up with unemployment or trafficking as sole career choices.

3 you can try but it will 100% bomb the US economy. Few things are actually produced in the US by US companies right now, they need materials from all over the world. And even China uses workshops in other countries to cut their costs nowadays - the rest of Southeast Asia like Vietnam, or Africa. So if you do that, I guarantee that you will get a repeat of the 1929 crisis, except worse because countries with actual funds will profit from it and buy American assets.

4 I am absolutely in favor of. I would also add that all caretaking jobs - whether it is kids or the elderly - should be paid more overall, because it is becoming a gigantic issue with aging societies.

[Sidenote, but taking care of elderly people, for me, belongs with jails or healthcare as things the private sector should only be able to touch with very serious government oversight, because if there is no oversight it is a recipe for horrible disasters]

5 I am in favor of, but it won't help much without a proper overhaul of what work is worth. Productivity has improved tremendously in the last few decades, way more than salaries have. Of course suggesting that there should be such a control makes me a dirty commie, but I'm not sure a positive endgame is possible if people keep working more efficiently without being sufficiently paid - it will only create unemployment, even within a rich country and without accounting for immigration.

[Raga]

the differences brought by medical or technological progress are way more important than those brought by religion (especially monotheistic ones) or genetics.

I would pick at this a little because there's no Enlightenment without Protestantism and there's arguably no Scientific Method formalized as we know it without the Enlightenment. But inasmuch as pretty much every developed country on Earth has adopted the Scientific Method at least (and pretty much every democracy has embraced the Enlightenment to some degree or other) and has since mostly secularized, it's a historical point and not really a modern cultural one.