That Would Never Work Here

[mattsmith48]

Everytime there is debate about gun control, electoral reform, health care, any kind of socialist policy etc. the people in the US who are against those things will almost always say ''that would never work here''. And sure changing the constitution or completely change your electoral system and restarting the way your government works from scratch is difficult, but not impossible. So tell me why something that works everywhere else would never work in the US?

[PlasmaHam]

Where does socialism really work? The Nordic countries? Just compare their growth prior to embracing socialism in the 1970s versus after. The Nordic countries got rich off capitalism, and their "successful socialism" is really just them riding on the coattails of their capitalist past. You will notice that the Nordic countries are slowly reverting back to more capitalist, pro-business policies because of that. Their corporate tax rate was significantly lower than the USA prior to the recent tax cuts, so if you want to use Nordic socialism as an ideal for the USA, then you must be in favor of the lower corporate tax cuts, but you weren't.

Nordic countries also have a greater work ethic among the populace, contributed I believe to a strong national identity, something sorely lacking in the USA. That is shown quite clear when you see that Nordic immigrants in the USA have a significantly better standard of living than the average American. And they have a significantly better standard of living compared to the people of their homeland. If socialism is such a boom, why then are they so much better under capitalism? The real thing that America needs to import is the Nordic countries' work ethic and unified identity, not their stagnant economic policies.

In general when comparing European nations to the USA, there are obvious differences. European countries are overall small, densely populated ethnic states with a unified national identity. America is a vast nation with a much larger and diverse population in terms of ethnic and religious identity. That affects many things, for instance elections. When you have a uniformly populated and geographically small electoral region, direct elections work fine. That's why state elections are direct, and why European countries have them. When you have a large and sporadically populated and diverse nation, especially Federated nations (nations with a strong sharing of power between a centralized government and state governments) like the USA and unlike most of Europe, direct elections are often unfair in that geographically small but heavily populated regions can elect the president all by themselves, despite being less than 10% of the nation in terms of geography. European nations do not have that problem to such an extent, again because of being more densely and evenly populated.

The USA is the leader in medical development and breakthroughs, and would be even better if the FDA adopted the policies of it's European counterparts, but of course that would never work here :rolleyes:. About work as well as Europe's much more conservative abortion laws and corporate tax rates. It's really amazing how people preach about how we should adopt Europe's healthcare, economic, and military spending policies, but then can't list any major European healthcare or business achievements of the last 50 years that even come close to comparing to the USA's. And next time they want to preach about US militarism, don't come begging to the US's door begging for help the next time Putin decides to carve another chunk out of you.

[West Coast Sheriff]

Guns come to my mind since I just recently saw a girl in a hoodie that read "black guns matter". It got me thinking of the guns in America, the demand for guns here, the communities with gun interests, and the individuals with gun interests. Just like the cannabis industry, now being regulated and controlled it's changed the country and the way people think. It boosts the economy.
With guns, there would be a big black market. Many Americans are culturally tied to guns.
Getting a gun should be harder than buying medicinal weed or buying a computer, but should be easier than buying/financing a house or financing a car.
Prostitution is regulated in many parts of the world and is operated quite efficiently. In United States, the demand, the nature of sex trafficking, and all that shows why regulated prostitution has worked in places of the world but not the states. Could the US regulate and control a paid-sex industry properly? I think it would be extremely difficult and near impossible to change the way this works. The United States hasn't done it well and would have no experience trying to start that. Here is an example of something that should stay illegal until maybe a proposed plan makes sense that could eliminate the dangers and increase safety for a high risk industry. I just don't see that happening. Abortions are not something I like. But should someone make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, I hope there are safe and legal options as opposed to back alley ops. Certain drugs are on the schedule I list that I don't agree with (but many are illegal for a reason an should stay that way) , yet in other countries there is even legalization I believe and decriminalization in other countries. But USA has a drug problem, there are a lot of consumers. Pharma wants to keep people on painkillers and other meds. This creates a lot of jobs for Americans (and other international high level doctors that come here) in the psychiatry field, pharmaceutical field, sales opportunities, medical research. The country would rather make money selling drugs than allow Mexico to make money selling drugs. The demand is so big that both markets exist and people often go from buying American drugs to buying Mexican drugs to save money (and as their addictions degress). People here want drugs. People here want guns. Black market sales of drugs and guns are interconnected so it's a much deeper problem. It boils down to poverty, those suffering from poverty and coping with it and those desperately taking the shortcuts to escape it. Who wants to make money? Yeah, a lot of citizens and civilians are fine making money the conventional way. Not everyone does. Rich people. Poor people with cash who want more. They want to make money and there is a lot of money in guns and drugs.
Lot of money in oil and war too. Importing from the Middle East is terrible, gives them money and hurts us. If we aren't getting oil here, (which we are we producing a ton on our own but just still can't get enough) I hate to say War might be the best thing for the uS. And money is not the main reason of war, but I'd say it's one of the big 4. (Prosperity,religious and cultural differences, a safe a protected America (#1), and the human inherent passion for violence. But, The engineers have jobs for making war equipment, the military is strong and passionate about this country, we are selling arms globally to allies who will be enemies soon. (I think in 10-20 years there is a 20-80% of war or "battle" with the Kurds. We have to compete as a nation with china for wealth and prosperity and if our country can't produce enough goods to export, the nation will make its profits in other ways. Our best chance for competing with china is to carry our own weight, and pray/hope that India and Mexico level the playing field. China invests a lot in Africa to develop the world there. They work for each other but the ultimately support China. Mexico also is somewhat tied to China but then again China really is the world champion of nations right now. Back to United States, we are trying to stay the #1 contender, by Creating jobs and especially those that help with fighting the bad guys.

Healthcare? All I know is it is expensive unless you are poor then you might get lucky. Obama helped people this way for a short time but hurt them in the long run by giving a hand out and not taking people out of their comfort zone for growth and development. Trump, idk what he's done, but I think he will try to do kinda what Clinton did in the 90's to yes help people but motivate them to work for themselves. Granted this is nearly 2 decades later so they have to take different factors into account. But still we can't pay for all this. Especially with the amount of people that come here. Our nation reached wealth and greatness, and like all great kingdoms, comfort,wealth and living near paradise made the people's slow down and not think about their future or well being. So now we need to bring or let in people here to do shit that people don't want to do. But There just isn't enough money to take care of our own people. People need to wake up in the 20's. I've thought people will wake up again in the 20's like the 60's. but instead with the afffect Americans, see what's happening in this nation, get hungry and get going but then idk what to do about the people here. There is a population crisis in this country and in the world. The only places that aren't overcrowded are the places that are undercrowded from lack of people making enough babies. Wouldn't it be great to provide around health care here in the states. I think it could be lit. But would we provide it in cities, rural areas, would States be responsible? There are so many holes.

We need to think about the long term of this nation. Future generations and so forth. It's easy to want what could be best for the United States but we can't just pay everyone live like utopia, go through the motions as a nation with easy made up jobs for everyone, because we will blow through our money and reserves, create a weaker less hungry generation. My generation isn't the best (certainly not the worst) and I'm hopeful but worried about the next generation to come.

Look at how Europe brought in so many people who didn't match the culture of Europe. Multiculturalism failed. But in the United States, things aren't perfect but we manage to do it better than anywhere else in the world. But what can you expect, people of different cultures are going to think differently of the other, there are fundamental values all cultures share and fundamental principles that can make two cultures incompatible. You take a person from one group and introduce him to someone from another group, I'd say no big deal but it actually is likely to have a positive outcome. You mix a group of peopleIt's all about exposure in my opinion and trying to understand we are all just human. But not everyone gets it this way, and many visitors fell unwelcome. Many foreigners have a great difficulty adjusting and adapting to the American way of life. In USA, latinos and whites both share Christianity from Europe and Catholicism from Spain. While Christianity in Northern Europe clashed with Catholicism centuries ago, the United States has worked to blend/unite its Christianity since the 1900s while Mexico has evolved their own simple but passionate and beautiful spin on Catholicism. These shared Christian values make integration easier. With Muslims, I think we have a lot of surface problems but we could definitely find common ground if we were willing to be open. I know christians who have no understanding of being open. For them, being open minded just means being open minded to Jesus. Now maybe with a growing Latino population, a lot of us may not bring gun values. We know what guns do in Mexico, the American cities and the world. But for the young latino men who have trouble adapting to American life, could live out a street culture that involves having guns without proper training or knowledge.

The Latino boys who are firing guns over money, and drugs and even girls. From my experience, knowing people who know people a lot of latinos in Denver were sent to Denver health (our biggest hospital) frequently with gun shots. I don't mean to stereotype but I've seen it with my own eyes, black male shootings are fatal much more than the Latino shootings. Young black men killing other young black men. That's one kid who's mom or grandma will never see again and another kid who has ruined his life and has to think about what he did to another man his whole life and live with it. Over money. Drugs. Anger.
There's a difference between the planning that goes down before a shooting. When anger and andernaline get a hold of a young man, he might not think before he acts. Whereas some men are ready to respond, ready to strategize, and ready to act. Others take deep preparation on their act of violence. Instead of inflicting violence upon an individual, they aim the violence against humanity. Some young men take their anger and passion and make the world pay in the name of their God. Other lonely boys, have nothing to loose, their weak mentality turns to a disturbed one. Perception and the way someone experiences the world can change so many ways. Their anger, frustration and hatred leads them to attacking humanity.
The question is are we more concerned with these large atrocities that happen quite often but relatively rare to the day to day epidemic of violence amongst young males. Both issues boil down to human inherent capability for violence and young males without a purpose or proper upbringing turning agresssive as opposed to soft, but both have their own trends and what we need is to look at solutions. Perhaps we should look at how to help young boys grow into good men. But the schools have only so many resources, and in bad environments how does one make an impact, home environment lives are huge to the development of young people.

I guess we sorta know the problems and the issues but do we understand them deeply enough. We don't know the solution. Do we even have the right questions to ask about what changes we need to make to fix our society?

Anything with a question mark at the end was not intended to be rhetorical, feel free to quote me, back me up, firm up my points, debate me, prove me wrong, keep me open minded etc.
I always appreciate feedback especially when I'm making claims I believe to be accurate about the world, anything you disagree with or I wasn't able to articulate clear enough, or whatever. I come to ROTW to learn.

[Dmaxd123]

because many of us look at the greater picture and realize that although no system is perfect including our own... ours is working fairly well

there is no utopia and there never will be.

plasma ham commented about nordic countries & the strong national identity, many countries aren't as diverse as the US when you start going from Florida to Maine to Nebraska, Texas, California, and Alaska we have a lot of different people to try and keep going in the same direction with the same set of laws


now I know some people especially you Matt HATE the electoral college.
2016 Election Stats which show some of the reason that the electoral college works for the US when electing the president since our country is so vast/diverse:
3141 Counties in the USA
Trump Won 2626
Clinton Won 487
NY has 62 Counties
Trump Won 46
Hillary 16

in the 5 counties that make up NYC, Clinton won 4 of them.

in the whole election Clinton did have 1.5million more popular votes than trump, in the 5 counties that make NYC she had over 2 million more popular votes so those 5 counties can sway the WHOLE nation's vote if we went 100% popular vote in a national election!

when the nation is almost 4 million square miles and NYC is 319 square miles it shows how the current system actually does work.

on a national level one gets a bit more of a voice, on a state level here in NY we are still ruled by NYC, Albany, Binghamton, Rochester, & Buffalo because the states are a 1 vote = 1 vote so higher population dictates what happens in rural America on the state level

[mattsmith48]

Where does socialism really work? The Nordic countries? Just compare their growth prior to embracing socialism in the 1970s versus after. The Nordic countries got rich off capitalism, and their "successful socialism" is really just them riding on the coattails of their capitalist past. You will notice that the Nordic countries are slowly reverting back to more capitalist, pro-business policies because of that. Their corporate tax rate was significantly lower than the USA prior to the recent tax cuts, so if you want to use Nordic socialism as an ideal for the USA, then you must be in favor of the lower corporate tax cuts, but you weren't.

Nordic countries also have a greater work ethic among the populace, contributed I believe to a strong national identity, something sorely lacking in the USA. That is shown quite clear when you see that Nordic immigrants in the USA have a significantly better standard of living than the average American. And they have a significantly better standard of living compared to the people of their homeland. If socialism is such a boom, why then are they so much better under capitalism? The real thing that America needs to import is the Nordic countries' work ethic and unified identity, not their stagnant economic policies.

First the US had one of the lowest corporate tax rate in the world long before the Trump tax cuts.

You need a good combination of both capitalism and socialism, Nordic countries are good at this, the concept of knowing what should and shouldn't be for profit if very important. People in those countries are the happiest in world because they don't have to stress about how a sickness might bankrupt them or on not being able to put food on the table or a roof over their head. They have good work ethic because they are treated well, they have strong unions providing them good working conditions.

In general when comparing European nations to the USA, there are obvious differences. European countries are overall small, densely populated ethnic states with a unified national identity. America is a vast nation with a much larger and diverse population in terms of ethnic and religious identity. That affects many things, for instance elections. When you have a uniformly populated and geographically small electoral region, direct elections work fine. That's why state elections are direct, and why European countries have them. When you have a large and sporadically populated and diverse nation, especially Federated nations (nations with a strong sharing of power between a centralized government and state governments) like the USA and unlike most of Europe, direct elections are often unfair in that geographically small but heavily populated regions can elect the president all by themselves, despite being less than 10% of the nation in terms of geography. European nations do not have that problem to such an extent, again because of being more densely and evenly populated.

New Zealand who have the best and fairest electoral system out there (Mixed-member proportional) they have a lower population density than the US and it works great there. Here in Canada we are the 2nd largest country in the world and less population then California, but there is no question that MMP would work great here, and we would get the evidence for that next year if a certain PM would have kept his promise. So tell me why wouldn't it work in the US.

The USA is the leader in medical development and breakthroughs, and would be even better if the FDA adopted the policies of it's European counterparts, but of course that would never work here :rolleyes:. About work as well as Europe's much more conservative abortion laws and corporate tax rates. It's really amazing how people preach about how we should adopt Europe's healthcare, economic, and military spending policies, but then can't list any major European healthcare or business achievements of the last 50 years that even come close to comparing to the USA's. And next time they want to preach about US militarism, don't come begging to the US's door begging for help the next time Putin decides to carve another chunk out of you.

For the health care thing, fuck Europe you should adopt our system.

Guns come to my mind since I just recently saw a girl in a hoodie that read "black guns matter".

Thats kinda offensive

It got me thinking of the guns in America, the demand for guns here, the communities with gun interests, and the individuals with gun interests. Just like the cannabis industry, now being regulated and controlled it's changed the country and the way people think. It boosts the economy.
With guns, there would be a big black market. Many Americans are culturally tied to guns.
Getting a gun should be harder than buying medicinal weed or buying a computer, but should be easier than buying/financing a house or financing a car.
Prostitution is regulated in many parts of the world and is operated quite efficiently. In United States, the demand, the nature of sex trafficking, and all that shows why regulated prostitution has worked in places of the world but not the states. Could the US regulate and control a paid-sex industry properly?

Personally I think that with prostitution should be decriminalize instead of fully legalized and regulated. That being said I can't think of any reason why prostitution couldn't be legalized and regulated in the US.

I think it would be extremely difficult and near impossible to change the way this works. The United States hasn't done it well and would have no experience trying to start that. Here is an example of something that should stay illegal until maybe a proposed plan makes sense that could eliminate the dangers and increase safety for a high risk industry. I just don't see that happening. Abortions are not something I like. But should someone make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, I hope there are safe and legal options as opposed to back alley ops. Certain drugs are on the schedule I list that I don't agree with (but many are illegal for a reason an should stay that way) , yet in other countries there is even legalization I believe and decriminalization in other countries. But USA has a drug problem, there are a lot of consumers.

Decriminalizing all drugs and by treating drug addiction as a mental health issue instead of a criminal one, you help eliminating the stigma which as for effect favourise a setting where it becomes easier for addicts to ask for help and for professional to give them treatment.

Pharma wants to keep people on painkillers and other meds. This creates a lot of jobs for Americans (and other international high level doctors that come here) in the psychiatry field, pharmaceutical field, sales opportunities, medical research. The country would rather make money selling drugs than allow Mexico to make money selling drugs. The demand is so big that both markets exist and people often go from buying American drugs to buying Mexican drugs to save money (and as their addictions degress). People here want drugs. People here want guns. Black market sales of drugs and guns are interconnected so it's a much deeper problem. It boils down to poverty, those suffering from poverty and coping with it and those desperately taking the shortcuts to escape it. Who wants to make money? Yeah, a lot of citizens and civilians are fine making money the conventional way. Not everyone does. Rich people. Poor people with cash who want more. They want to make money and there is a lot of money in guns and drugs.

Drugs and guns are two different things, it is easy to make the drugs illegally yourself, guns a lot harder, they need to come from somewhere, in the US a great majority of the guns on the blackmarket are either stolen or bought legally.

Healthcare? All I know is it is expensive unless you are poor then you might get lucky. Obama helped people this way for a short time but hurt them in the long run by giving a hand out and not taking people out of their comfort zone for growth and development. Trump, idk what he's done, but I think he will try to do kinda what Clinton did in the 90's to yes help people but motivate them to work for themselves. Granted this is nearly 2 decades later so they have to take different factors into account. But still we can't pay for all this. Especially with the amount of people that come here. Our nation reached wealth and greatness, and like all great kingdoms, comfort,wealth and living near paradise made the people's slow down and not think about their future or well being. So now we need to bring or let in people here to do shit that people don't want to do. But There just isn't enough money to take care of our own people. People need to wake up in the 20's. I've thought people will wake up again in the 20's like the 60's. but instead with the afffect Americans, see what's happening in this nation, get hungry and get going but then idk what to do about the people here. There is a population crisis in this country and in the world. The only places that aren't overcrowded are the places that are undercrowded from lack of people making enough babies. Wouldn't it be great to provide around health care here in the states. I think it could be lit. But would we provide it in cities, rural areas, would States be responsible? There are so many holes.

Just would like to point out this is the richest country ever we're talking about. There is no reason they couldn't afford to give health care to everyone. The federal government should be creating the bases of a new health care system, and work with the states to have both to fund it.

Yes there is a overpopulation problem but in some parts of the world its fixing it self with better access to birth control and education.


Look at how Europe brought in so many people who didn't match the culture of Europe. Multiculturalism failed. But in the United States, things aren't perfect but we manage to do it better than anywhere else in the world.

We do it much better then the US.



now I know some people especially you Matt HATE the electoral college.

Sorry that I like when every vote count the same, instead of some being worthless and some being worth more based on where you live. Also electoral college is only the tip of the giant undemocratic iceberg that is FPTP.

2016 Election Stats which show some of the reason that the electoral college works for the US when electing the president since our country is so vast/diverse:
3141 Counties in the USA
Trump Won 2626
Clinton Won 487
NY has 62 Counties
Trump Won 46
Hillary 16

in the 5 counties that make up NYC, Clinton won 4 of them.

in the whole election Clinton did have 1.5million more popular votes than trump, in the 5 counties that make NYC she had over 2 million more popular votes so those 5 counties can sway the WHOLE nation's vote if we went 100% popular vote in a national election!

First you realize you are complaining about big cities being worth too much, but you support a system where (using your numbers) the candidate who won all of New York's 29 electoral votes, won 30 less counties then her opponent? At least if you were giving the number of electoral votes proportionally instead of a winner take all system, it wouldn't be as bad. Still would be terrible way to do things, but better.

Now let me tell you why this system is terrible. (Warning a lot of math is involved)

In 2016, a total of 7,721,453 votes were cast in the state of New York, Hillary Clinton won the state with 4,556,124, thats 3,165,329 votes against her, now because this is first-past-the-post or winner take all, those 3,165,329 become worthless, but thats not all, Donald Trump finished 2nd with 2,819,534 votes meaning that Hillary Clinton only needed 2,819,535 votes to win, 4,556,124-2,819,535=1,736,589 people who if the had stayed home wouldn't have made a difference except for very stressful TV on election night. So you add the two totals 3,165,329+1,736,589=4,901,918 or 63.48% worthless votes, btw she won the state with 59.01% of the votes.

when the nation is almost 4 million square miles and NYC is 319 square miles it shows how the current system actually does work.

on a national level one gets a bit more of a voice, on a state level here in NY we are still ruled by NYC, Albany, Binghamton, Rochester, & Buffalo because the states are a 1 vote = 1 vote so higher population dictates what happens in rural America on the state level

So you are saying it is wrong that 1 vote = 1 vote?

[Merk]

I will contribute my statement here shortly, but for the time being, I'd just like to say: I really want a "black guns matter" hoodie now.


I'll be back.

[Dmaxd123]

So you are saying it is wrong that 1 vote = 1 vote?

i'm saying any perceived injustice of the electoral college for ONE person in ONE branch of government is greatly offset

on a day to day basis the president has a much smaller affect on a citizens life than the governor of a state who is elected by gaining the most votes

therefore the current system isn't terrible as it really balances itself out a bit better when the president is elected by electoral, the legislative branch of the US govt is elected by popular votes, the governor of the state, our representatives in state level, representatives in county & school levels are all elected by popular votes too so it's only one small branch that has been elected by the electoral college

[lliam]

tell me why something that works everywhere else would never work in the US?


Imo, US citizens, like most citizens of other states in the Western hemisphere, are too wealthy even on the lowest level as they really think about making changes. So it simply lacks a majority will to do so, even they are aware of all the flaws their sytem has.



But as said, they not alone having this prob.
And more words aren't really needed for an explanation.


As Leonard Nimoy once said to German fans: " You are so human. "

By all means I like to give it back by saying: " You are so German! "

[Snowfox]

Where does socialism really work? The Nordic countries? Just compare their growth prior to embracing socialism in the 1970s versus after. The Nordic countries got rich off capitalism, and their "successful socialism" is really just them riding on the coattails of their capitalist past. You will notice that the Nordic countries are slowly reverting back to more capitalist, pro-business policies because of that. Their corporate tax rate was significantly lower than the USA prior to the recent tax cuts, so if you want to use Nordic socialism as an ideal for the USA, then you must be in favor of the lower corporate tax cuts, but you weren't.

Nordic countries also have a greater work ethic among the populace, contributed I believe to a strong national identity, something sorely lacking in the USA. That is shown quite clear when you see that Nordic immigrants in the USA have a significantly better standard of living than the average American. And they have a significantly better standard of living compared to the people of their homeland. If socialism is such a boom, why then are they so much better under capitalism? The real thing that America needs to import is the Nordic countries' work ethic and unified identity, not their stagnant economic policies.

In general when comparing European nations to the USA, there are obvious differences. European countries are overall small, densely populated ethnic states with a unified national identity. America is a vast nation with a much larger and diverse population in terms of ethnic and religious identity. That affects many things, for instance elections. When you have a uniformly populated and geographically small electoral region, direct elections work fine. That's why state elections are direct, and why European countries have them. When you have a large and sporadically populated and diverse nation, especially Federated nations (nations with a strong sharing of power between a centralized government and state governments) like the USA and unlike most of Europe, direct elections are often unfair in that geographically small but heavily populated regions can elect the president all by themselves, despite being less than 10% of the nation in terms of geography. European nations do not have that problem to such an extent, again because of being more densely and evenly populated.

The USA is the leader in medical development and breakthroughs, and would be even better if the FDA adopted the policies of it's European counterparts, but of course that would never work here :rolleyes:. About work as well as Europe's much more conservative abortion laws and corporate tax rates. It's really amazing how people preach about how we should adopt Europe's healthcare, economic, and military spending policies, but then can't list any major European healthcare or business achievements of the last 50 years that even come close to comparing to the USA's. And next time they want to preach about US militarism, don't come begging to the US's door begging for help the next time Putin decides to carve another chunk out of you.

I must say few things about nordic countries. Finland and Norway and Denmark and Sweden we have more or less mandatory military service. Finland and Norway calling more men to duty than rest. We also have strong gun culture while its way different than in USA we have lots of firearms in hands of ordinary people. Most of ordinary folks here deeply hate socialism and especially state interfering every aspect of life. We like anyway social security and generally speaking we are ready to pay for it in form of higher taxes. While at same time we hate bureacratic system how its done and how it passivates people.
We have as nations this paneuropean cancer called EU and socialism.

[Stronk Serb]

Well, regarding guns, it is about mentality. I mean, Serbia has had disarmament campaigns by the government. Kinda no point in opposing the tyrranical government when they violate your rights, no matter if you are armed or disarmed. Sure, a bunch of you with your fancy AR-15s are gonna wreak havoc, but when the National Guard gets called in, you are screwed. The whole idea of using guns to defend against tyrranical government makes zero sense to me.
Also Germany, Serbia, Slovakia and Switzerland have pretty okay gun laws, Switzerland has pretty lax ones too, but becauss of the Swiss mentality, they do not go around shooting schools and stuff, but all these countries have one thing in common: to own a machine which can send death down range more rounds per minute than you can count is not your right, it is a privilege which must be earned.
About healthcare, please don't, Serbia is a European country and as it turns out, some people pay more in healthcare tax to the state than they would be paying for private insurance. It would be dandy if the system actually worked, but it is broken. Last time I went to the doctor because of a flu, I came back even sicker because I had to wait in the waiting room stuffed with sick patients for 6 hours! Also not to mention that time when I was refused to be even examined "because my appointed doctor works the opposite shift". Now, when I went to private clinics, which cost pretty much the same, I got examined/treated in like 15 minutes since I came in.
The thing I like about Serbia that the US doesn't have is more affordable and in some cases free third and fourth level education. For example, st the University I will go to in June, I will take an admission exam and if I am above a determined threshold, I will study there at the state's expense.
Also for you guys across the pond, keep in mind that Europe is more diverse than all of the US. I mean, the Balkan countries which combined are shy of 70 million people have 9 different languages, 8-12 different peoples (depending who you ask) and a ton of national minorities. I mean, before WWII ethnic Germans were like 10-15% of the Serbian population.

[Jinglebottom]

Concerning guns, I found this very interesting map on Reddit (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8lzb7v/how_far_do_you_live_from_the_nearest_major_mass/)):

https://i.redd.it/fx6wjqgbsxz01.jpg

Eat up!

[lliam]

at least, even Vancouver Island is near by, but mass shooting free

[Hermes]

With regard to healthcare the last table I saw didn't rank the UK NHS as top of the table for health outcomes or bottom of the table for cost, but it was close to the top of the table for outcomes and close to bottom of the table for cost, i.e. it is extremely good value for money.

So providing healthcare to everyone in the country no matter how poor they are does not have to be expensive. It is also the case that, while this is paid for by direct taxation, it means employers don't have to offer health plans to their employees. Given the low cost of the NHS this almost certain means less healthcare burden on employing someone than in the USA.

As for other ideas, to me the ideal balance is a system in which people are rewarded for working and for taking initiative but one that also recognises that people's capacity to work varies. For thinking jobs some people are brighter than others. For physical jobs some people are strong than others. Some people have a better education than others, and some have physical and mental disabilities. It is far too simplistic and dogmatic to assume that someone who does not prosper under pure capitalism is simply lazy and to take the view that those who can't "pull their weight" should be left to perish is behaving like a dog pack. Where is the civilisation that makes us human?

[PlasmaHam]

Here's a question in the same vein. Almost every European country have immigration laws significantly stricter than that of the USA, and have a significantly lesser portion of their population being immigrants. Almost every country, including immigrant havens like Australia and Canada, may accept more immigrants (per percentage of population, the USA accepts the most in pure numbers) but have a stricter selection process, based heavily on the person's potential contribution to society. And very few if not none of these countries have an avenue for illegal immigrants to gain legal residency or citizenship, like you have with DACA.


Simply put, most other successful countries accept less immigrants, have stricter requirements for immigration, and don't have laws granting illegal immigrants residency, nevermind citizenry. Why won't that then work in the USA?

[Dmaxd123]

Here's a question in the same vein. Almost every European country have immigration laws significantly stricter than that of the USA, and have a significantly lesser portion of their population being immigrants. Almost every country, including immigrant havens like Australia and Canada, may accept more immigrants (per percentage of population, the USA accepts the most in pure numbers) but have a stricter selection process, based heavily on the person's potential contribution to society. And very few if not none of these countries have an avenue for illegal immigrants to gain legal residency or citizenship, like you have with DACA.


Simply put, most other successful countries accept less immigrants, have stricter requirements for immigration, and don't have laws granting illegal immigrants residency, nevermind citizenry. Why won't that then work in the USA?


talk about opening a can of worms hahaha.

I agree 100%, was listening to a radio show a month or two ago that brought that up, but anytime someone brings it up on a political level they are terrible heartless people


instead of looking at better boarder requirements we are fighting "sanctuary" cities, the idea of letting illegals get drivers licenses and I think it was somewhere in california that wanted to give them free healthcare!

I'm not opposed to immigration but agree that it is a place we could look at other countries and up our standards a bit

[Merk]

Yup, California 'government' is currently trying to pass a bill that would provide 'free' healthcare to illegal immigrants, at legal taxpayers expense. This would cost said taxpayers over 3 billion dollars a year. By the way, the legal residents don't get 'free' healthcare. Only Democrats, most of them at that, are the ones pushing for it. Remember, the illegal immigrants, are crossing the border ILLEGALLY, not legally. The illegal immigrants don't pay taxes either.

PS... How is this thread still one page?!? It's long as hell

[ShineintheDark]

Here's a question in the same vein. Almost every European country have immigration laws significantly stricter than that of the USA, and have a significantly lesser portion of their population being immigrants. Almost every country, including immigrant havens like Australia and Canada, may accept more immigrants (per percentage of population, the USA accepts the most in pure numbers) but have a stricter selection process, based heavily on the person's potential contribution to society. And very few if not none of these countries have an avenue for illegal immigrants to gain legal residency or citizenship, like you have with DACA.


Simply put, most other successful countries accept less immigrants, have stricter requirements for immigration, and don't have laws granting illegal immigrants residency, nevermind citizenry. Why won't that then work in the USA?

You must bear in mind that the US is in a different position to many of its other developed allies: Europe is composed entirely of either EU nations or EU allies that follow the Schengen Agreement, meaning free movement of goods and people from country to country. The only strictly enforced borders are along the edges of the continent and on the coasts of the UK as the UK is an island nation so cannot guarantee that everyone who lands there has actually sailed from Europe. Canada's only land neighbour is the USA and so land crossing across border lines are less common. Australia and New Zealand are island nations so land crossings do not occur. Otherwise, land crossings into other nations are actually very common in many nations throughout Africa and Asia but the governments provide less for their citizens than developed nations do so having people just walk in means less to them. Israel has always kept a tight border for obvious reasons.
I do think immigration is one that takes a lot of nuance. There are certain areas that we can certainly be stricter on and illegal immigration is always illegal and should always carry some legal ramifications but at the same time we must also understand that in the case of the US, due to there being an enormous border to the south that can never be 100% protected, even with a border wall/fence/moat/dragon, illegal immigration from Mexico will always be a major issue. Otherwise, the main form of immigration problem isn't actually crossing the border, it's overstaying your visa or applying for the wrong one (*ahem* Melania *ahem*).

[mattsmith48]

i'm saying any perceived injustice of the electoral college for ONE person in ONE branch of government is greatly offset

on a day to day basis the president has a much smaller affect on a citizens life than the governor of a state who is elected by gaining the most votes

therefore the current system isn't terrible as it really balances itself out a bit better when the president is elected by electoral, the legislative branch of the US govt is elected by popular votes, the governor of the state, our representatives in state level, representatives in county & school levels are all elected by popular votes too so it's only one small branch that has been elected by the electoral college

You need to stop missing the point, the electoral college is only part of the problem. You keep focusing on the electoral college, forgeting the rest of the problems with your whole electoral system, a system where 63% of the votes don't matter, a system where the value of your vote varies based on where you live, a system where people are stuck having to chose between two corrupt parties that share non of their values. Most votes wins no matter what only works when they are only two options, like on a yes or no question. Going that route to elect your government no matter what level does not work, it leads to false a majorities and two major parties taking turns running like dictatorship, and having said two parties constantly attacking each other instead of working together for the better of the people.

So I am asking, why are you against changing that? And why would a system where every votes counts like the one used in Germany and New Zealand not work in the US?

Here's a question in the same vein. Almost every European country have immigration laws significantly stricter than that of the USA, and have a significantly lesser portion of their population being immigrants. Almost every country, including immigrant havens like Australia and Canada, may accept more immigrants (per percentage of population, the USA accepts the most in pure numbers) but have a stricter selection process, based heavily on the person's potential contribution to society. And very few if not none of these countries have an avenue for illegal immigrants to gain legal residency or citizenship, like you have with DACA.


Simply put, most other successful countries accept less immigrants, have stricter requirements for immigration, and don't have laws granting illegal immigrants residency, nevermind citizenry. Why won't that then work in the USA?

It is normal that countries that gives more to their population socially have stricter restrictions for legal immigrants. For people like refugees it is a lot harder for them to get into the US then other countries. As for illegal immigration it is not really a big issue here or in EU. Here most people who illegally cross the border by land are refugees who fear deportation if the stay in the US, so they take their chances here, most of them will end up staying.

due to there being an enormous border to the south that can never be 100% protected, even with a border wall/fence/moat/dragon

Don't give them any ideas