U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Gocka]

A bully is not a leader. Real leaders gain respect through admiration, not through fear or dependence. He has not political theories, all he says is we are going to make everything great, without ever giving one even tiny detail about how he plans to accomplish anything. Anyone including me and you can stand on a stage, be rude to everyone around us, and claim we will make everything great, and when people ask us how are you going to make things great, we just say "trust me you will see".

I'm curious if you dont mind sharing. How did Obamacare directly cost you and people you know your jobs? Not that I doubt its true, I am genuinely curious.

If it came down to Hillary or Trump, I will invest all my time and energy to make it to mars.

He displays strong leadership qualities and thats what people like about him the most. His political theories are definitely questionable, but we'll see as the race continues. Personally I didn't like Obama, Obamacare cost me and others our jobs and is bullshit. I like Bernie Sanders but havent done enough research on him and heard some notions about raising taxes but If it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, I'll vote for trump.

[Gocka]

Socialism on its own is useless, as is any system including capitalism. Just because something like public healthcare originates from socialism doesn't mean its useless, or that you are a socialist for wanting it. You get too hung up on labels and immediately want to label everything. There is no reason why different components from different systems cant be combined to yield an effective system.

Macedonia is what it is, not because of socialism or capitalism, but because of idiot-ism.

[George S.]

it works in some cases but not inothers.

[Vangelovski]

The Federal government can raise the funds and distribute them equally by population. There is not reason why the decision making cant still be left to the local government. The get funds for education healthcare, police, and other essentials, and it is up to them to use the funds as there local population wants. If the local population would rather spend all their funds on police and nothing on education and healthcare, then so be it, as long as that is their choice. Your are generalizing.

Can you show me one example where this has actually happened in practice? Where a national/federal government has provided finances on the scale that you are talking about and the decision-making power on the scale you are talking about, without later slowly recentralising the decision-making power? Australia attempted it at the state level, not the local level, during the 90s and 00s, only to have the federal government re-centralise decision-making power in the guise of “standardisation”. The only way it could work is if the national/federal government gave up its ability to tax and left that to the local government and the local government then provided funding to the national/federal level. This was how Australia first started out (though at the state level), then somewhere along the line (can’t remember when exactly) the federal government decided to ignore the Constitution and took control of taxation. From then on, federal law became supreme and when they did not have the constitutional power to actually make a law, they either bribed or punished the states financially until they enacted the laws that the federal government wanted.

You ought to learn a little bit more about what goes on in the real world and not what some books says it should be like.

You’ve made this comment a few times now. What do you know about me or the extent of my experience to suggest I have no “real world” knowledge or experience and that everything I say/do/know is based on something I’ve read in a book?

If you can not see that the system from the ground up is heavily influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups, backed by a lot of money, then you are just sticking your head in the sand and pretending. Just because it is not 100% dominated by special interests doesn't me they aren't a problem. Illusory democracy isn't democracy. You can elect who ever you want, but if you cant control them then that is illusory democracy. How revolving doors are there between lobbyist groups, corporate board rooms, and government? .

Lobbyists and special interest groups are not a bad thing in and of themselves. Macedonian communities are lobby and special interest groups – we’re just not always backed by a lot of money. Its part of the democratic process, yet you see it (from what I can tell based on what you’ve posted) solely as a negative aspect of the system. You also like to talk about corporations as some sort of amorphous mass. But do you actually understand (you should, you’re an accountant) that they are owned by millions of people, with just as many competing agendas? The latest data I saw I think was that over 50 per cent of households in the US own shares in corporations listed publicly. That’s a massive proportion of the population, not just a handful of billionaires. While corporate influence over government is not always a good thing, its still a legitimate part of the process.

The representatives have too much leeway to vote on their conscious and not enough pressure to vote according to the will of their constituents. Again something that in theory is great by in practice is heavily manipulated.

The ability to vote according to their conscious is a good thing in and of itself – at least you know to an extent that they will be able to vote according to their views and then vote accordingly at election time. In Australia, or any other democratic system I can think of at the top of my head, representatives are not able to vote according to their conscious without explicit permission from their political party. So the representative can campaign on various policies knowing full well that they will be reigned in by the party once in power (unless they are an independent).

In over a 100 years since recall elections were enacted, and they do not exist in all states, there have been just over a 100 recalls in all branches of government. The vast majority of these recalls around 85 were local mayors, only 2 governors ever have been recalled, and a dozen and a half from congress and senate. This is over a 100 year period. Where between Governors, Congress, and Mayors, over 20,000 a year serve. So over a 100 years of nearly 2,000,000 officials 100 have been successfully recalled. So I suppose the other 1,999,900 of them all just did a bang up job.

This is fantastic. One hundred recalls is unthinkable in the Westminster system. Do you know how many we’ve had in Australia over the past 100 years? ZERO. Its not an option.

I love the way the US system of government is setup, I think the US constitution is the best in the world, but the integrity of that system has been compromised, and it needs to start over. I would have no problem with it starting over just as it was originally intended.

I would love for the US system to start over as it was originally intended as well, but I don’t think you really would. If you read founding documents such as the Federalist Papers, letters between the founders of the Republic and the writers of the Constitution, early Supreme Court decisions etc, I think you would be livid at the original intent of many of the Constitutional provisions – particularly given the strong Biblical influence over many of them. I say this based on the things you have posted here.

[DraganOfStip]

Macedonia is what it is, not because of socialism or capitalism, but because of idiot-ism.

Amen to that.

[Vangelovski]

Macedonia is what it is, not because of socialism or capitalism, but because of idiot-ism.

So every socialist country is what it is because of idiotism and not socialism? Socialism is never to blame, it was never "real" socialism, they didn't have long enough to make it work, the west ensured that it couldn't work. Same old excuses.

[Tomche Makedonche]

Macedonia is what it is, not because of socialism or capitalism, but because of idiot-ism.

Can't say I agree that 40 odd years of Yugoslav Socialism is an irrelevant factor on the current state of Macedonia's republic.

[DraganOfStip]

Can't say I agree that 40 odd years of Yugoslav Socialism is an irrelevant factor on the current state of Macedonia's republic.

No one says it hasn't played it's part,but Macedonia is where it is today beause of a trade embargo and corrupt politicians that were only conserned about their pocket insted of getting the newly formed state to it's feet and the benefits of it's citizens.
Look at Slovenia,Czech republic,Poland...those were all communist countries that now play a big role in European economy.
But unlike here,the local politicians enforced the transitional period in a great manner.
Meanwhile it seems like Macedonia is stuck in an eternal transition.

[Tomche Makedonche]

No one says it hasn't played it's part,but Macedonia is where it is today beause of a trade embargo and corrupt politicians that were only conserned about their pocket insted of getting the newly formed state to it's feet and the benefits of it's citizens.
Look at Slovenia,Czech republic,Poland...those were all communist countries that now play a big role in European economy.
But unlike here,the local politicians enforced the transitional period in a great manner.
Meanwhile it seems like Macedonia is stuck in an eternal transition.

Well it is actually kind of what was said, but nevertheless one could argue that the unaccountability of the citizenry in all facets of their own governance (and lives to a degree) is a direct by product of socialism. The fact that it was (and still generally is) expected that the remote few in power would always act in the best interests of the citizenry when they had no one to answer to but themselves is what might by defined as “idiocy”.

[DraganOfStip]

Well it is actually kind of what was said, but nevertheless one could argue that the unaccountability of the citizenry in all facets of their own governance (and lives to a degree) is a direct by product of socialism. The fact that it was (and still generally is) expected that the remote few in power would always act in the best interests of the citizenry when they had no one to answer to but themselves is what might by defined as “idiocy”.

Yes,as I said no one can deny the role of the pre-1991 system,but just look at the examples I gave you.
Former Eastern block countries (which had an even more opressive style of communism) are far better than Macedonia is today.
According to 2014 data,average salaries in these countries are: Slovakia 708 eur, Czech Republic 754 eur, Latvia 606, Poland 698, Estonia 871...
Even in our closest surroundings we have Croatia with 775 eur and Slovenia with 1092 eur.
Now,comparing these numbers with the 2000+ average salaries in most western European countries it may seem bad,but compare that with the 350 eur in Macedonia (even though it's hardly the realistic average salary since around 75% of the people receive less than that) it's far,far better.
So you can't just attribute today's condition in Macedonia to consequences of socialism (simply because most former communist countries are doing way better),but also to the lack of leadership (I will allow myself to use our own word АПАШЛАК) and the trade embargo of the early 1990's,not forgetting also the 1999 Kosovo refugee crisis + the conflict of 2001,which also costed our economy dearly.
In my opinion,at least.
And yes,it perfectly fits in the "idiotism" label too.

[Vangelovski]

"Far better than Macedonia" doesn't mean much. Some African countries are "far better than Macedonia". I've spent some time in both Poland and the Czech Republic. Both are disasters compared to the West. In fact, the former East Germany is still a disaster compared to the former West Germany, even after 25 years and billions of Euro's invested into the East.

Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic were comparable to the West prior to the second world war. It was socialism that destroyed them and will keep them far behind for some time yet.

[Gocka]

Didn't I say that socialism on its own is useless?

So every socialist country is what it is because of idiotism and not socialism? Socialism is never to blame, it was never "real" socialism, they didn't have long enough to make it work, the west ensured that it couldn't work. Same old excuses.

[Gocka]

So then in your opinion we can only do what has already been done? By that logic we would still be in the stone age.

Can you show me one example where this has actually happened in practice? Where a national/federal government has provided finances on the scale that you are talking about and the decision-making power on the scale you are talking about, without later slowly recentralising the decision-making power? Australia attempted it at the state level, not the local level, during the 90s and 00s, only to have the federal government re-centralise decision-making power in the guise of “standardisation”. The only way it could work is if the national/federal government gave up its ability to tax and left that to the local government and the local government then provided funding to the national/federal level. This was how Australia first started out (though at the state level), then somewhere along the line (can’t remember when exactly) the federal government decided to ignore the Constitution and took control of taxation. From then on, federal law became supreme and when they did not have the constitutional power to actually make a law, they either bribed or punished the states financially until they enacted the laws that the federal government wanted.

Because you always tend to generalize and idealize and pretend that everything you want can happen i a vacuum where everything else doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

You’ve made this comment a few times now. What do you know about me or the extent of my experience to suggest I have no “real world” knowledge or experience and that everything I say/do/know is based on something I’ve read in a book?

Communism in its own right is not a bad thing either until its put into practice. Lobby groups are totally misused and feed very narrow interests. Owning 100 shares of Google doesn't mean you own Google and can influence what Google. In both instances money is the key, $1 dollar 1 influence point. $1 million dollars = 1 million influence points.

Lobbyists and special interest groups are not a bad thing in and of themselves. Macedonian communities are lobby and special interest groups – we’re just not always backed by a lot of money. Its part of the democratic process, yet you see it (from what I can tell based on what you’ve posted) solely as a negative aspect of the system. You also like to talk about corporations as some sort of amorphous mass. But do you actually understand (you should, you’re an accountant) that they are owned by millions of people, with just as many competing agendas? The latest data I saw I think was that over 50 per cent of households in the US own shares in corporations listed publicly. That’s a massive proportion of the population, not just a handful of billionaires. While corporate influence over government is not always a good thing, its still a legitimate part of the process.

Again in theory is great, in practice instead of being bound to your party wishes, you are bound to your contributors. Even Donald Trump admits that he has given money to everyone, to try and influence them, that once you take money from someone you owe them. I don't think this freedom should be removed, I think the means by which it is manipulated should be removed which is right above, lobbying.

The ability to vote according to their conscious is a good thing in and of itself – at least you know to an extent that they will be able to vote according to their views and then vote accordingly at election time. In Australia, or any other democratic system I can think of at the top of my head, representatives are not able to vote according to their conscious without explicit permission from their political party. So the representative can campaign on various policies knowing full well that they will be reigned in by the party once in power (unless they are an independent).

Its a drop in the bucket. Over 100 years and 2,000,,000 instances you can probably finds 1000's of examples of gross incompetence and corruption. Yet only a 100 were successful, and this is not even my problem. Like I already said, the bare bones of the system is quite good, take out the influence of money and I think you will naturally had back in the right direct just as money gradually steered it in the wrong direction.

This is fantastic. One hundred recalls is unthinkable in the Westminster system. Do you know how many we’ve had in Australia over the past 100 years? ZERO. Its not an option.

Christianity in my opinion is just like socialism. As a whole it leads to problems, but many of its principles are very good. Again if you want to get biblical I am confident if Jesus came back to earth in disguise, the last thing he would be, would be a free market capitalist. He would probably be described as a socialist, this would make you livid.

I would love for the US system to start over as it was originally intended as well, but I don’t think you really would. If you read founding documents such as the Federalist Papers, letters between the founders of the Republic and the writers of the Constitution, early Supreme Court decisions etc, I think you would be livid at the original intent of many of the Constitutional provisions – particularly given the strong Biblical influence over many of them. I say this based on the things you have posted here.

[Vangelovski]

So then in your opinion we can only do what has already been done? By that logic we would still be in the stone age.

Can you provide an example or not?

Because you always tend to generalize and idealize and pretend that everything you want can happen i a vacuum where everything else doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

Can you tell me anything about my background or experience or are you just trying to generalise now? If anyone generalises, you are the master of it. I provide more detail and empirical evidence than most on here.

Communism in its own right is not a bad thing either until its put into practice. Lobby groups are totally misused and feed very narrow interests. Owning 100 shares of Google doesn't mean you own Google and can influence what Google. In both instances money is the key, $1 dollar 1 influence point. $1 million dollars = 1 million influence points.

I think you need to learn what a lobby group is. You seem to be generalising too much. Any two people or more can be a lobby group. The AMHRC is in effect a lobby group when it makes representations to government on behalf of its members and the wider Macedonian community. Share ownership runs right across the spectrum - from that $1 to many millions of dollars. I just found a gallup poll that shows 55% of American adults own stocks:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-americans-invested-market.aspx

That's the equivalent of about 125 million people. Individual ownership and influence will vary, but its not a 1% affair...

Again in theory is great, in practice instead of being bound to your party wishes, you are bound to your contributors. Even Donald Trump admits that he has given money to everyone, to try and influence them, that once you take money from someone you owe them. I don't think this freedom should be removed, I think the means by which it is manipulated should be removed which is right above, lobbying.

Again, I don't know what you think a lobby group is, but its meaning is much broader than your generalisation of it as some sort of "corporate" one percenters only...maybe its you that's been reading too much...socialist literature?

Its a drop in the bucket. Over 100 years and 2,000,,000 instances you can probably finds 1000's of examples of gross incompetence and corruption. Yet only a 100 were successful, and this is not even my problem. Like I already said, the bare bones of the system is quite good, take out the influence of money and I think you will naturally had back in the right direct just as money gradually steered it in the wrong direction.

Drop in the bucket or not, I've seen grassroots examples of it. But I'm not sure about your numbers. According to this wikipedia article, there were 150 recall election in 2011 alone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election#2011_recalls

Christianity in my opinion is just like socialism. As a whole it leads to problems, but many of its principles are very good. Again if you want to get biblical I am confident if Jesus came back to earth in disguise, the last thing he would be, would be a free market capitalist. He would probably be described as a socialist, this would make you livid.

Would he also say that 'religion is the opiate of the masses'? I don't think so. He taught compassion, mercy and giving from one's own belongings, but not socialism. There is a big difference between freely giving what one has decided to give and having the state nationalise private property by force and redistributing it.

[DraganOfStip]

Bernie Sanders in "CBS This Morning":

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/bernie-sanders-on-universal-healthcare-taxing-the-rich-and-taking-on-clinton/