341–350 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This index unironically puts countries that practice government censorship in the category of full democracies. Sorry but this isn't a democracy index - it's just a progressive index.
To lots of people, “liberal democracy” just means “liberal.”
And yes, some of the rights are essential for democracy. There is a reason bill of rights was approved at the sunrise of our democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also Snow Crash, the US consisting of many large, corpo-owned city states (also being discussed in the current news with techbros trying to start up their own self-regulated cities).
Not to mention the military agencies having fractured into for-profit corporations like CIC and "Admiral Bob's Navy" etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To import the same German car into France the cost is (cough) 20%. No, the cost to import is 0%. The 20% VAT you are talking about here applies equally, regardless of whether the car is imported, or (cough) French. Again, VAT is just a kind of sales tax, and you pay sales tax for all goods, imported and domestic. To import an American car into France the same 20% is paid plus a 10% import fee for a total of 30%. No.…
Why is importing an american car into the EU 10% but importing a car into the U.S. is 2.5%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its up to discussion if current president's power is really unchecked.
Sure, but that’s what makes someone a dictator, not whether they poll well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there data for this question which would back restricting populations from having tools of self defense against tyrannic government(could happen in Canada too one day) and make it high priority for society compared to other problems? The US has these tools and a dictator upending the country and yet these tools are not being utilized.
half of the country supports him, so he is not really dictator.
What makes a dictator is a ruler unconstrained in practice by law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much smaller would the US deficit be if America wasn't invading multiple countries at the same time? Taxes are only one side of this problem. The other side is expenses. Empires are expensive.
Which countries are we currently invading? Regardless, in the 2023 budget Social security far outstrips defense, Medicare is just a shade higher, and Medicaid is not far behind. I'm entirely in favor of slimming down the US military industrial complex, but doing so isn't going to fix the deficit. You could 0 out the defense budget entirely and there would still be another trillion dollars of deficit to deal with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, the CBO has a range of policies for fixing the federal deficit, most of which are pretty reasonable. I'm a fan of taxing the better off more (but I'm not a US citizen or taxpayer so that's easy for me to say).
Define "the better off?" I also agree with you in principle, but you're overlooking an important fact about American politics. The mainstream "left" in the U.S. is dominated by affluent professionals who hate paying taxes as much as any Reagan Republican. They pay lip service to the idea of "taxing the better off more," but by that they mean "billionaires." That's not a big enough tax base to raise the $1-2 trillion…
I do think that, at least, removing the income cap on social security would be helpful.
Honestly though, the only thing that'll stop the current US approach to fiscal policy is the bond markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes 2 to make a trade, and the best strategy for an iterated prisoner's dilemma scenario is tit-for-tat. The party that started the silliness should end it, but until then, Canada should rightly consider stronger ties with the Europe - they do share a border with a European country after all.
The best strategy is tit-for-tat with eventual forgiveness attempts. It's way too soon for that (the US is still controlled by Republicans) but one eventually re-opening trade might be optimal, assuming there's still a USA to trade with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's history: if a person doesn't grade on a curve, every page of the textbook looks the same (ie: people being jerks). In order to deny that England, America, and France spearheaded the modern democratic system (albeit inspired by Ancient Greece), a person needs to explain who did?
> In order to deny that England, America, and France spearheaded the modern democratic system That doesn't mean these governments make any political sense as a democracy today relative to the status quo. Hell, Britain is probably the only government on earth more dysfunctional than America's. At least France refreshed relatively recently; what the hell is Britain's excuse? Even North Korea and Eritrea seem to maintai…
It's in the name: United Kingdom.
The people like the pomp and ceremony.