POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Karl Marx]

lenin. betrayed and immortalized by stalin so that handicaps like you would see him as a justified, noble dictator

mao- sino-soviet split. distinctly different ideological beliefs.

castro- installed by a crackpot argentine revolutionary. replaced a broken republic with a fake one.

kim jong-un- i would rather live under stalinism.

Alright, I misspoke. Those aren't inherently Stalinism. They do, however, share the trait of totalitarianism / authoritarianism, and unless I'm mistaken, were all supported by / allies of the Soviet Union. This isn't a very damning rebuttal to my original point.

One more note: Lenin is more complicated. He did advocate for the temporary centralization of power, but he never passed very many significant policies. You could make the case that he revolted against and killed monarchist rulers, but that would put the same amount of blood on his hands as are on the founding fathers.

[Ad Bot]

[Juncoph]

One more note: Lenin is more complicated. He did advocate for the temporary centralization of power, but he never passed very many significant policies. You could make the case that he revolted against and killed monarchist rulers, but that would put the same amount of blood on his hands as are on the founding fathers.

lol because the founding fathers totally killed all the americans who didnt completely agree with them

and by the way, the founding fathers' issue was actually being too decentralized. it's almost as if they cared about liberty, freedom, etc.

Alright, I misspoke. Those aren't inherently Stalinism. They do, however, share the trait of totalitarianism / authoritarianism, and unless I'm mistaken, were all supported by / allies of the Soviet Union. This isn't a very damning rebuttal to my original point.

collectivized power leads to factional conflict by the groups that are no longer bound by democratic checks and balances. if you replace a republic with a confederation of unions, tyranny of the majority will happen the moment an angry person figures out charisma. if you form a communist nation through a centralized government, you would have to be authoritarian and tyrannical. if you devolve society into anarchism, then it would immediately evolve into an anarcho-capitalist proto-feudalism hellhole because nobody has any government-enforced obligation to help others.

[Deus Ex]

• Decriminalize drug possession, sell legally and regulate to reduce harm
• Implement nation-wide gun control laws so it would be, at the very least, highly impractical to travel out-of-country to buy guns and then re-sell them in Chicago illegally
• Fund and regulate schools to ensure equal access to education
• Fund public infrastructure rebuilding projects and sustainable energy projects, pay reasonably
• Implement universal healthcare (Nationwide) so nobody drowns in debt from a twisted ankle

By no means is this an exhaustive list, it's just a few ideas.

You're right though, fascism is the practical decision here.

None of these are going to solve the problem of rooted in gun violence and gangs in Chicago. How in the forget is culling gang violence fascism? Are you trolling? I'm not even arguing against any of the ideas there, except nation wide gun control, because it's proven gun control doesn't do loving richard for anyone, criminals will find ways to purchase guns no matter what laws you pass, but how do any of these solve the crime problem in Chicago?

how loving bad do you think chicago is lmao

Are you just gonna ignore this or

[beachbum111111]

This Karl Marx guy is clearly a troll

[Punished Toxicology]

This Karl Marx guy is clearly a troll

he should probably come to brazil

[Red Spy]

 i love the mentality that "trying to control drug distribution is useless, but gun control will work !!!!"

[Karl Marx]

lol because the founding fathers totally killed all the americans who didnt completely agree with them

To my understanding, the suppression was mostly directed at aristocrats and monarchists actively working towards upholding a violently dangerous system, but I'm not entirely emotionally invested in the defense of Lenin. I've made no claims to be a Leninist.

collectivized power leads to factional conflict by the groups that are no longer bound by democratic checks and balances. if you replace a republic with a confederation of unions, tyranny of the majority will happen the moment an angry person figures out charisma. if you form a communist nation through a centralized government, you would have to be authoritarian and tyrannical. if you devolve society into anarchism, then it would immediately evolve into an anarcho-capitalist proto-feudalism hellhole because nobody has any government-enforced obligation to help others.

I believe I've been over this before. It's a bit asinine to be so positive that people would willingly toss away their rights simply because someone has a lot of charisma. Good looks and some clever speeches are no longer enough to convince people to throw themselves at your feet. If it was, surely America would have been destroyed by the "Tyranny of the majority" by now. People have enough self-preservationist instincts to resist this when it becomes obvious. Considering that, in the situation you proposed, the equal distribution of power is already existent, they would also have the power necessary to resist this.

How in the forget is culling gang violence fascism? Are you trolling?

Refusing to deconstruct a cycle that leads countless individuals to gun violence, and then shooting them dead in the streets when this cycle succeeds, is little more than the state-sponsored execution of the less fortunate.

[Master Matthew²]

i love the mentality that "trying to control drug distribution is useless, but gun control will work !!!!"

Turning them both off won't work.
But making both legal, within reason, would both make stuff tons of money and bring up the economy as well as hit the middle ground we need.

IE Simple Solution:
Class different weapons under different training levels, and require said training and a license to get them.

Certain States would certainly make certain weapon grades Military Access Only, but that could be left to be state to state.

Similarly with Drugs except replace Military Class with Pharmacy Only and just flat out illegal.  (also, obviously there wouldn't be "training" classes)

[Karl Marx]

In addendum, the reason that gun control has been "proven not to work" is because it hasn't actually been implemented fully. You can't control guns in one area, but refuse to control them in a geographically nearby location. Though your arguments still hold some merit when you realize guns could still be circulated via some cross-continental gun cartel, it becomes a lot less relevant when the forces driving people to gun violence are removed.

To put it in terms a CEO could understand: If the demand isn't there, the supply drops.

[Insert Name Here²]

people seem to forget that legalizing weed and some other relatively harmless drugs, and applying a tax to them when sold, could go towards the debt and benefit the economy, as well as make a forget ton of drug-related crimes and deaths and such die down

[Deus Ex]

We should be more open to the idea of legalizing weed and partially decriminalizing certain drugs. Instead of just locking up people who are buying and addicted to the stuff we should focus on rehab and skill building so they break out of that cycle. Say what you want about the dealers, but I don't think carrying just enough cocaine or heroine for personal use should get you put in jail for years. Taxing weed would be a great idea, not sure why there's still any discussion about it.

[Karl Marx]

We should be more open to the idea of legalizing weed and partially decriminalizing certain drugs. Instead of just locking up people who are buying and addicted to the stuff we should focus on rehab and skill building so they break out of that cycle. Say what you want about the dealers, but I don't think carrying just enough cocaine or heroine for personal use should get you put in jail for years. Taxing weed would be a great idea, not sure why there's still any discussion about it.

Even from a capitalist standpoint, it has the potential to be insanely profitable. Establishment politicians are stubborn bastards.

[IkeTheGeneric]

We should be more open to the idea of legalizing weed and partially decriminalizing certain drugs. Instead of just locking up people who are buying and addicted to the stuff we should focus on rehab and skill building so they break out of that cycle. Say what you want about the dealers, but I don't think carrying just enough cocaine or heroine for personal use should get you put in jail for years. Taxing weed would be a great idea, not sure why there's still any discussion about it.

You should look at how much revenue Colorado's made off of taxing recreational marijuana. It's absolutely insane.

[e-maxx]

dude weed lmao

[IkeTheGeneric]

In addendum, the reason that gun control has been "proven not to work" is because it hasn't actually been implemented fully. You can't control guns in one area, but refuse to control them in a geographically nearby location. Though your arguments still hold some merit when you realize guns could still be circulated via some cross-continental gun cartel, it becomes a lot less relevant when the forces driving people to gun violence are removed.

To put it in terms a CEO could understand: If the demand isn't there, the supply drops.

Violence is a symptom of a greater issue. Attempting to curb the means to commit violence instead of attacking the root of the issue will definitely make it harder to commit violence, but the problem won't go away.

Along with that, the concept of gun ownership and the right to bear arms is ingrained in American culture. You will be hard-pressed to work against that to put out gun control legislature. It would be practically career Self Delete.