• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Future of The USA

If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the followin

  • Total voters
    30
MusicAdventurer said:
Oh, OK, sorry, I didn't realize that. I think I pick option C, however I would most like something that is a mix between option b and c. It just seems to be the most ethical to me. I believe wealth and power are under rated if you have the right allies. I believe that it is hard to compete with certain other immoral countries, e.g. china. However, I believe that if enough like minded countries banded together we could see option C realized while still keeping a lot of wealth and power.



Yes I agree with you roflpublican, ambiguous statements like these are nauseating and non-committal.
Click to expand...

The unfortunate thing is, our allies are underwater. the EU consists of most of NATO, and they're all spiraling down the same trap Hoover jammed us into 80+ years ago. We are morally obligated to maintain our position as #1, until a viable #2 emerges that can be accepted. China is a dictatorship, so is Russia, heres to the rise of democratic republican brazil because until then we need more carriers, more nukes, and more delta force platoons.
 
Paul Austin said:
I guess you just dont get it. It doesnt matter that much it just means you'll hit a lot of none of the aboves (or people just not voting) & you'll end up with a meaningless results.

I was only trying to help you
Click to expand...

My hunch is people don't want to answer because it would be too revealing. It "cuts to the chase", which is what most people aren't willing to do. I'll admit, to a degree I was hoping people would step up to the task as I've seen people do in ethics classes. But, I also realize that putting oneself in a vulnerable situation isn't very comfortable. To me lots of people saying none of the above is just proof that I am hitting core values and people don't want to be forced to prioritize them. Priorities are key my friend. ;)

Actually, this is probably why we are in so much debt right now and why it is so hard to accomplish things in Washington. That is, people refuse to face reality and make the hard decisions. Instead, people want to hide behind feelings of invincibility, a huge error.
 
Van Basten said:
Lame set of choices.
Click to expand...


Cop out answer IMO, especially since everyone who has said this could have just ignored the post. Not ignoring it means it struck something that made you want to reply. But rather than facing the hard hypothetical decision, people use a variety of ego protecting vices to avoid it.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Cop out answer IMO, especially since everyone who has said this could have just ignored the post. Not ignoring it means it struck something that made you want to reply. But rather than facing the hard hypothetical decision, people use a variety of ego protecting vices to avoid it.
Click to expand...


If one person doesn't like your poll, maybe the fault lies in that one person.


If NOBODY likes your poll.... maybe you should consider that the fault is in the poll.... ya think? :mrgreen:
 
Goshin said:
Yes, seriously. If you're saying this OP is an abstract hypothetical dilemma that has little connection to reality, then I agree. I wasn't shaken to my core; I was unimpressed. I am not unwilling to answer hard questions, I'm unwilling to be bound by false dichotomies. I don't lack experience with these issues, I apparently have more experience with them than you because I can recognize when I'm being presented with an unrealistic set of options.
Click to expand...

If if you were unimpressed, then why put your 2 cents in? Obviously the post struck some cord inside you :)

Goshin said:
I decline to let other people define my options for me, particularly when those options are not realistic.
Click to expand...

Its an exercise. If you didn't want to partake in it, why did you say anything at all?

Goshin said:
:lamo You don't know me bud. I'm not some college freshman, I'm an ex-cop. I'm a middle aged blue collar single father with a teenage son and a mortgage: I make hard decisions every day. You talking down to me is pretty damn funny.
Click to expand...

I know several people that have had the hardest lives in the world, much harder than what you are describing. Some of them are able to answer these types of questions, some of them aren't. Sometimes people who have had the easiest lives can answer these types of questions. Its not about how hard one's life is. Its about ones ability to make decisions on a priority basis... something that our government is supposed to be doing every day.
 
Goshin said:
If one person doesn't like your poll, maybe the fault lies in that one person.
Click to expand...

The question is why do so many people find this poll aversive? I have a hunch that it is related to the fact that it is a dilemma. Have you ever heard of the life boat ethical decision? Its another example of an exercise in ethics.

Goshin said:
If NOBODY likes your poll.... maybe you should consider that the fault is in the poll.... ya think? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Lets not get defensive now ;)
 
MusicAdventurer said:
The question is why do so many people find this poll aversive? I have a hunch that it is related to the fact that it is a dilemma. Have you ever heard of the life boat ethical decision? Its another example of an exercise in ethics.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know about ethical dilemmas and the lifeboat question and game theory and all that.



Lets not get defensive now ;)
Click to expand...


... said the pot to the kettle....
 
roflpublican said:
The unfortunate thing is, our allies are underwater. the EU consists of most of NATO, and they're all spiraling down the same trap Hoover jammed us into 80+ years ago. We are morally obligated to maintain our position as #1, until a viable #2 emerges that can be accepted. China is a dictatorship, so is Russia, heres to the rise of democratic republican brazil because until then we need more carriers, more nukes, and more delta force platoons.
Click to expand...

How we got here may be a debate for another time. Its something to learn from in order to avoid making the same mistake(s) again. What matters most is the path forward.

So I ask, what do you think would happen if we weren't #1? What if we were #2? Then, if we went further down, what if we were #3? And so on? What would happen? What is your forecast? What are your fears?

Also, why more carriers? Why more nukes? Why more delta forces? What will happen if we don't get more of those things? What are you afraid would happen? Fear is probably the most poisonous enemy we have and it is self induced. IMO. It limits creativity and our ability to allow change. It has its survival benefits, but fear unregulated is poisonous and very dangerous.
 
I think the issue many are taking with the poll is that it seems to have an overall negative outlook of our future. IE: we have to give up something critically important. I don't think the US has to do that, we're an incredibly well endowed nation with energy, minerals, educated people, infrastructure, military, economy, masters of our hemisphere in all but name, etc. We can have it all, if we do it right. I think making the thread a little more open-ended, without specific scenarios, and instead challenging people with a 'what would you do, provide details/specifics or don't post' would make the discussion smoother.


MusicAdventurer said:
How we got here may be a debate for another time. Its something to learn from in order to avoid making the same mistake(s) again. What matters most is the path forward.

So I ask, what do you think would happen if we weren't #1? What if we were #2? Then, if we went further down, what if we were #3? And so on? What would happen? What is your forecast? What are your fears?

Also, why more carriers? Why more nukes? Why more delta forces? What will happen if we don't get more of those things? What are you afraid would happen? Fear is probably the most poisonous enemy we have and it is self induced. IMO. It limits creativity and our ability to allow change. It has its survival benefits, but fear unregulated is poisonous and very dangerous.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am very afraid of what a dictatorship like China would do to a weak America. Are you not? At a time when our 'enemies' are ramping up their military spending, we can't be ramping ours down. We need an armed force that can out-and-out obliterate any enemy that seeks to do us harm: that's how we ensure they rarely, if ever, will attempt to do us harm.

A picture i found awhile back on the internet explains what i mean, about why we need to maintain arms (an armed government and an armed populace) and maintain them well:
the-second-amendment-george-washington-british-revolutionary-political-poster-1275189913.jpg

also, i don't see what's wrong with the rational fear that 1.5 billion people brainwashed from birth into an expansionist dictatorial communist ideology would potentially be a threat to us. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Yes, I know about ethical dilemmas and the lifeboat question and game theory and all that.
Click to expand...

OK, so what of the lifeboat? Did you refuse to engage in that too?

Goshin said:
... said the pot to the kettle....
Click to expand...

I can see where what I said may have offended you and for that I apologize; however, I believe there is some truth to what I am saying. That is, what I am asking is a difficult question to answer. There isn't much precedence to rely on; one must rely on their own hard-set values and then rationalize those in a manner that is socially acceptable. Its complicated.
 
roflpublican said:
I think the issue many are taking with the poll is that it seems to have an overall negative outlook of our future. IE: we have to give up something critically important. I don't think the US has to do that, we're an incredibly well endowed nation with energy, minerals, educated people, infrastructure, military, economy, masters of our hemisphere in all but name, etc. We can have it all, if we do it right. I think making the thread a little more open-ended, without specific scenarios, and instead challenging people with a 'what would you do, provide details/specifics or don't post' would make the discussion smoother.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your honest response. It is refreshing. I agree that we are a well endowed nation. I also don't believe things are as bad as the media is making them out to be. I believe most of it is to create drama and an attempt for political parties to get their licks. There is big money in politics. Different people benefit from different political figures being in power. Big big money.

In regards to open questions - that would ruin the point of the exercise. I have made several closed ended polls and this is the first that I have gotten such aversive reactions to. :)

roflpublican said:
Yes, I am very afraid of what a dictatorship like China would do to a weak America. Are you not?
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think they would do to us if we weren't top dog?
 
A is the bankruptcy option. I feel C is a reasonable option. Most USA believe the Media hype and imagery and can't see the real world. They know the cliff looming on the horizon and rapidly approaching is going to disappear before it gets here, just like in the movies. It ain't the movies, it's the real world.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
OK, so what of the lifeboat? Did you refuse to engage in that too?
Click to expand...

No, I have no problem with answering ethical dilemmas. I have however pointed out that there are many fallacies in the classical lifeboat dilemma which take it out of the realm of reality and make it an abstract hypothetical, such as the lifeboat captain's inability to predict the future accurately (ie he has no way of knowing if the boat will sink before rescue arrives with any certainty.)

But yes, if I had to play Chooser of the Slain I can do it. In response to another question of ethics in another thread, I replied plainly that my priorities are clear: I'd shoot a stranger who was threatening my friend; I shoot my friend if he threatened my sister; I'd shoot my sister if she threatened my son or myself. My valuation of people is admittedly subjective, I value immediate family most of all, friends second, acquaintances third. The value of a stranger to me depends on a variety of things, including gender and age as well as utility and behavior. I value the life of the innocent over the guilty; as a societal and biological imperative I value children and women of reproductive age more than others. I value a fellow American more than most foreigners, and a friendly foreigner more than a hostile one.

I have no problems with hard choices. I just dislike having my options limited in an unrealistic manner.


I can see where what I said may have offended you and for that I apologize; however, I believe there is some truth to what I am saying. That is, what I am asking is a difficult question to answer. There isn't much precedence to rely on; one must rely on their own hard-set values and then rationalize those in a manner that is socially acceptable. Its complicated.
Click to expand...

It's fine. I just disagree with your assessments of our options, in particular how far "down" we'd have to sink to do this or that. I prefer to stick with options/questions that are IMO more closely tied to reality.
 
Goshin said:
....take it out of the realm of reality and make it an abstract hypothetical....
Click to expand...

Goshin said:
It's fine. I just disagree with your assessments of our options, in particular how far "down" we'd have to sink to do this or that. I prefer to stick with options/questions that are IMO more closely tied to reality.
Click to expand...

That's fine if you don't want to engage in a hypothetical conversation. Please don't believe that I am convinced that these are our exact options. Instead, look at it as a way to respond to a problem. That is, to decide what you would do if these were the only options. Its just a starting point; that's all.
 
Goshin said:
....take it out of the realm of reality and make it an abstract hypothetical....
Click to expand...

Goshin said:
It's fine. I just disagree with your assessments of our options, in particular how far "down" we'd have to sink to do this or that. I prefer to stick with options/questions that are IMO more closely tied to reality.
Click to expand...

That's fine if you don't want to engage in a hypothetical conversation. Please don't believe that I am convinced that these are our exact options. Instead, look at it as a way to respond to a problem. That is, to decide what you would do if these were the only options. Its just a starting point; that's all.
 
Van Basten said:
Put up a better set of options and we may get somewhere.


Yes, that you gave us a poor set of choices.
Click to expand...

Hey, no one said making priority type situations was going to be easy ;)
 
None of the above but of the options you gave, D is the worst and would justify armed rebellion. C is unworkable because if the USA is merely in the top half in the world there is not going to be the finances necessary to pay for the stuff you have for the poor. A or B might be tolerable
I like the voting in proportion to taxes paid but its not ever going to happen. That leaves B
 
MusicAdventurer said:
That's fine if you don't want to engage in a hypothetical conversation. Please don't believe that I am convinced that these are our exact options. Instead, look at it as a way to respond to a problem. That is, to decide what you would do if these were the only options. Its just a starting point; that's all.
Click to expand...


:shrug: I expressed what I though we could do. We can make huge cuts in domestic Federal spending, and large cuts in military spending, and still have good social programs and the best military in the world and STILL balance the budget, IF we get rid of the waste, pork, fraud and general crap that exists among those two budget categories.

It will mean hardship for some areas, closing military bases we don't need and not building another 1000 tanks this year unless we actually need 1000 new tanks. It will be hard on some politicians who won't get to bring home the Federal bacon in the form of money for local stuff that doesn't really help the poor a lot but does bring some business to local contractors. However it can be done, if the political will existed to really reform government spending and cut those bloated, frequently useless non-results-producting, often-needlessly duplicated bureacratic empires down to a lean efficient machine.

The hard part about that is that I serious doubt the political will exists to do it... too many pockets being lined, too many politicians depending on pork for reelection.

Short version, the real world often sucks more than any hypothetical dilemma. ;)
 
I believe the presumptions of the poll are exactly wrong.

To be MOST charitable to our own people, we also must be as wealthy a nation as possible.

Increased charity/welfare by declining economic national wealthy is an impossibility.
 
TurtleDude said:
None of the above but of the options you gave, D is the worst and would justify armed rebellion. C is unworkable because if the USA is merely in the top half in the world there is not going to be the finances necessary to pay for the stuff you have for the poor. A or B might be tolerable
I like the voting in proportion to taxes paid but its not ever going to happen. That leaves B
Click to expand...

Wow, I never thought I'd be happy to see a post from you TDude :mrgreen: lol... unlike others, you actually worked through the different options and realized that none are perfect, but at least one is the most preferable, that is, choosing the greater of 4 evils

I would have to disagree with your position on proportional taxes though
 
joko104 said:
I believe the presumptions of the poll are exactly wrong.

To be MOST charitable to our own people, we also must be as wealthy a nation as possible.

Increased charity/welfare by declining economic national wealthy is an impossibility.
Click to expand...

Its like that advertisement that Immigrant-billionaire Thomas Pefferry (sp) has put up

Under socialism, the rich are poorer but so are the poor. Its the rich who take care of the poor. want the poor to have better handouts, support the creation of more wealthy people
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom